[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKXUXMz_M5z00yZiBkYWxBmuQGFwMD4JwMH11qs4EHfPOawUvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 21:21:18 +0100
From: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] notifier: repair slips in kernel-doc comments
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 7:34 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 11:57 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Invoking ./scripts/kernel-doc -none kernel/notifier.c warns:
> >
> > kernel/notifier.c:71: warning: Excess function parameter 'returns' description in 'notifier_call_chain'
> > kernel/notifier.c:119: warning: Function parameter or member 'v' not described in 'notifier_call_chain_robust'
> >
> > These two warning are easy to fix, as they are just due to some minor slips
> > that makes the comment not follow kernel-doc's syntactic expectation.
> >
> > Fix those minor slips in kernel-doc comments for make W=1 happiness.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
> > ---
> > Rafael, please pick this minor non-urgent patch for your pm tree. Thanks.
>
> Applied as 6.2 material, but I'm kind of wondering why you decided to
> send this to me.
>
Well, kernel/notifier.c is one of those files, with no specific
maintainer and no specific obvious subsystem... so the next patch goes
to the last one touching it ;)
More seriously:
get_maintainer.pl -f kernel/notifier.c does state:
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com> (commit_signer:2/3=67%)
Rafael, you took the only two patches in 2022 and carried them forward
to Linus. So, that was my thinking for this minor patch as well; no
deeper thought than that.
If you would not have accepted them, I might have tried Andrew Morton
in a few weeks for the next merge window (v6.3) as a last resort.
Rafael, thanks for picking up this patch.
Lukas
> >
> > kernel/notifier.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/notifier.c b/kernel/notifier.c
> > index 0d5bd62c480e..ab75637fd904 100644
> > --- a/kernel/notifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/notifier.c
> > @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static int notifier_chain_unregister(struct notifier_block **nl,
> > * value of this parameter is -1.
> > * @nr_calls: Records the number of notifications sent. Don't care
> > * value of this field is NULL.
> > - * @returns: notifier_call_chain returns the value returned by the
> > + * Return: notifier_call_chain returns the value returned by the
> > * last notifier function called.
> > */
> > static int notifier_call_chain(struct notifier_block **nl,
> > @@ -105,13 +105,13 @@ NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(notifier_call_chain);
> > * @val_up: Value passed unmodified to the notifier function
> > * @val_down: Value passed unmodified to the notifier function when recovering
> > * from an error on @val_up
> > - * @v Pointer passed unmodified to the notifier function
> > + * @v: Pointer passed unmodified to the notifier function
> > *
> > * NOTE: It is important the @nl chain doesn't change between the two
> > * invocations of notifier_call_chain() such that we visit the
> > * exact same notifier callbacks; this rules out any RCU usage.
> > *
> > - * Returns: the return value of the @val_up call.
> > + * Return: the return value of the @val_up call.
> > */
> > static int notifier_call_chain_robust(struct notifier_block **nl,
> > unsigned long val_up, unsigned long val_down,
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists