linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period_us from struct gpio

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]

Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 16:35:09 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period_us from
 struct gpio_desc

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:40:26AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 3:15 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 08:18:01AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:07:12PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 08:03:44PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

...

> > > > > > - it adds complications for no benefit
> > >
> > > It provides a placeholder for collective documentation and clarifies
> > > scope for the reader.
> >
> > Turns out kernel-doc can't deal with a struct variable declaration - it
> > needs the struct to be named.
> >
> > So this doesn't parse:
> >
> > static struct {
> >         struct rb_root tree;
> >         spinlock_t lock;
> > } supinfo;
> >
> > but this does:
> >
> > static struct supinfo {
> >         struct rb_root tree;
> >         spinlock_t lock;
> > } supinfo;
> >
> > at which point I prefer the separate struct and var declarations as per
> > the patch.
> >
> > Opinions?
> 
> Yeah, don't make it a kernel doc. It's a private structure, no need to
> expose documentation for it in docs. Just use a regular comment - say
> what it is and why it's here.

I agree with Bart, make it plain comment if needed.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko