linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

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]

Message-ID: <0187710f-73c1-4ee1-87f9-384101f0c32c@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 15:55:33 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
 Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

On 26/08/2024 19:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 06:18:50PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Drop kerneldoc descriptions of struct members which do not exist to fix
>> W=1 warnings:
>>
>>   drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c:101: warning: Excess struct member 'lock' description in 'pch_gpio'
>>   drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c:46: warning: Excess struct member 'compatible' description in 'syscon_gpio_data'
> 
> I prefer on per-driver basis, but since it's simple and I have nothing
> in my queue,

These are so trivial without impact on the code, even if W=1 reports
them, that it would be quite a churn to handle multiple patches.

Best regards,
Krzysztof