linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND 4/4] x86/apic: Fix W=1 build kernel-doc warning

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: <aCWL0Ql27EIpJsr1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 08:38:09 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Shivank Garg <shivankg@....com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
	luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, rafael@...nel.org,
	pavel@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	sohil.mehta@...el.com, rui.zhang@...el.com, yuntao.wang@...ux.dev,
	kai.huang@...el.com, xiaoyao.li@...el.com, peterx@...hat.com,
	sandipan.das@....com, ak@...ux.intel.com, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 4/4] x86/apic: Fix W=1 build kernel-doc warning


* Shivank Garg <shivankg@....com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 5/14/2025 1:26 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Shivank Garg <shivankg@....com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Building the kernel with W=1 generates the following warning:
> >>
> >> arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2140: warning: Function parameter or struct member 'spurious_interrupt' not described in 'DEFINE_IDTENTRY_IRQ'
> >> arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2140: warning: expecting prototype for spurious_interrupt(). Prototype was for DEFINE_IDTENTRY_IRQ() instead
> >>
> >> Fix the description format to fix the warning.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <shivankg@....com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c | 7 ++++---
> >>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> >> index 62584a347931..f888a28d400f 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> >> @@ -2128,9 +2128,10 @@ static noinline void handle_spurious_interrupt(u8 vector)
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  /**
> >> - * spurious_interrupt - Catch all for interrupts raised on unused vectors
> >> - * @regs:	Pointer to pt_regs on stack
> >> - * @vector:	The vector number
> >> + * DEFINE_IDTENTRY_IRQ - Handler for spurious interrupts
> >> + * @spurious_interrupt: Catch all for interrupts raised on unused vectors
> >> + * regs:	Pointer to pt_regs on stack
> >> + * vector:	The vector number
> > 
> > This is incorrect and is based on a misunderstanding of what the code 
> > does:
> > 
> > DEFINE_IDTENTRY_IRQ(spurious_interrupt)
> > {
> >         handle_spurious_interrupt(vector);
> > }
> 
> The kernel-doc tool doesn't handle macros properly.

Then we should not document that function in a misleading fashion, just 
to work around kernel-doc limitations.

> Can I change it to a normal comment instead?

Yeah, I think that's fine.

Thanks,

	Ingo