[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201207104851.20400bba@lwn.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:48:51 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the rcu tree
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 08:47:04 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> I freely confess that I have absolutely no idea what it doesn't like.
> It is complaining about this header comment, correct?
>
> /**
> * kmem_last_alloc_stack - Get return address and stack for last allocation
> * @object: object for which to find last-allocation return address.
> * @stackp: %NULL or pointer to location to place return-address stack.
> * @nstackp: maximum number of return addresses that may be stored.
> *
> * If the pointer references a slab-allocated object and if sufficient
> * debugging is enabled, return the return address for the corresponding
> * allocation. If stackp is non-%NULL in %CONFIG_STACKTRACE kernels running
> * the slub allocator, also copy the return-address stack into @stackp,
> * limited by @nstackp. Otherwise, return %NULL or an appropriate error
> * code using %ERR_PTR().
> *
> * Return: return address from last allocation, %NULL or negative error code.
> */
The problem is the %ERR_PTR(). I'm honestly not quite sure why, Sphinx is
being a little weird there. But in any case the % notation is supposed to
mark a constant, which is not the case here. I'd just take the % signs
out.
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists