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 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.