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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZXplMThBSD53UV0s@rigel> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:15:13 +0800 From: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> To: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> Cc: 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 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? Cheers, Kent.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists