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: <CAHp75VfCi4x-h-E9b3kw3eoOTDaOae5b=dzBiXo+cn1Tyy-gQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 13:37:43 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, 
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 1:09 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:02 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:55 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Even trivial changes may lead to Git conflicts if managed separately.
> > But as I said, there is nothing in my queue (at all) so there are no
> > chances for conflicts.
>
> Is this an Ack for me to take these or do you want them to go through your tree?

I was under the impression that I had sent the Rb tag (there was an
explanation about my preferences which do not prevent this from being
applied). Should I resent it? (Yes, I have checked and it's there,
`b4` should catch that.)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko