linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: Eliminate compilation warnings for misc

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <138d5b8d-e189-4203-9bd0-c51f05f97a06@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Nov 2021 21:04:44 +0800
From:   Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Eliminate compilation warnings for misc

Hi Matthew,

On 11/17/21 1:19 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 04:06:11PM +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
>> Eliminate the following clang compilation warnings by adding or
>> fixing function comment:
> 
> These warnings have nothing to do with clang.  They're produced by
> scripts/kernel-doc:
> 
>                  if (show_warnings($type, $declaration_name) && $param !~ /\./) {
>                          print STDERR
>                                "${file}:$.: warning: Function parameter or member '$param' not described in '$declaration_name'\n";
>                          ++$warnings;
>                  }
> 
> They show up in any W=1 build (which tells you that people are not
> checking their patches with W=1)
> 

Yes, there will be this warning when compiling with W=1.

>> +++ b/fs/file.c
>> @@ -645,7 +645,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(close_fd); /* for ksys_close() */
>>   
>>   /**
>>    * last_fd - return last valid index into fd table
>> - * @cur_fds: files struct
>> + * @fdt: fdtable struct
> 
> I don't think the word 'struct' there really conveys any meaning.
> 
I think this is already a primitive, or is there any better suggestion?

Kind regards,
Tianjia