[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d7663e19-74d5-478d-becc-0a080075e7d6@roeck-us.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:40:05 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Maíra Canal <mcanal@...lia.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Daniel Diaz <daniel.diaz@...aro.org>,
David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
Arthur Grillo <arthurgrillo@...eup.net>,
Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] sh: Add support for suppressing warning
backtraces
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 07:39:20PM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
[ ... ]
> > >
> > > Hi Guenter,
> > >
> > > a minor nit from my side: this change results in a Kernel doc warning.
> > >
> > > .../bug.h:29: warning: expecting prototype for _EMIT_BUG_ENTRY(). Prototype was for HAVE_BUG_FUNCTION() instead
> > >
> > > Perhaps either the new code should be placed above the Kernel doc,
> > > or scripts/kernel-doc should be enhanced?
> > >
> >
> > Thanks a lot for the feedback.
> >
> > The definition block needs to be inside CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE,
> > so it would be a bit odd to move it above the documentation
> > just to make kerneldoc happy. I am not really sure that to do
> > about it.
>
> FWIIW, I agree that would be odd.
> But perhaps the #ifdef could also move above the Kernel doc?
> Maybe not a great idea, but the best one I've had so far.
>
I did that for the next version of the patch series. It is a bit more
clumsy, so I left it as separate patch on top of this patch. I'd
still like to get input from others before making the change final.
Thanks,
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists