linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] of: overlay: Fix kerneldoc warning in of_overlay

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJJt5_zCcu-zFmZkPNtuNrOKZBiEoD2foM-uhU56Lg2Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:03:42 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: overlay: Fix kerneldoc warning in of_overlay_remove()

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 2:38 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/21/21 10:45 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > '*ovcs_id' causes a warning because '*' is treated as bold markup:
> >
> > Documentation/devicetree/kernel-api:56: ../drivers/of/overlay.c:1184: WARNING: Inline emphasis start-string without end-string.
> >
> > Fix this to use the normal '@' markup for function parameters.
> >
> > Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> > Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/of/overlay.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c
> > index d241273170fd..67c9aa6f14da 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c
> > @@ -1181,7 +1181,7 @@ static int overlay_removal_is_ok(struct overlay_changeset *remove_ovcs)
> >   * If an error is returned by an overlay changeset post-remove notifier
> >   * then no further overlay changeset post-remove notifier will be called.
> >   *
> > - * Return: 0 on success, or a negative error number.  *ovcs_id is set to
> > + * Return: 0 on success, or a negative error number.  @ovcs_id is set to
> >   * zero after reverting the changeset, even if a subsequent error occurs.
> >   */
> >  int of_overlay_remove(int *ovcs_id)
> >
>
> The change results in incorrect information.  I am guessing that "@*ovcs_id"
> would not be valid syntax (I have not tried it).  The changed version says
> that the pointer ovcs_id is changed to zero, but the actual action is to
> change the value pointed to by ovcs_id is changed to zero.  Is there a
> valid syntax to say this?

I was assuming the reader should know how parameters work in C...
Having previously beat my head with the syntax here, I went with the
easy route. Normal rSt syntax would be ``*`` to escape it. But
kerneldoc isn't normal syntax. Turns out just plain "*@...s_id" works
without warning and highlights the parameter (which was missing
before).

I'll update the commit.

Rob