[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yr8iSRZEMSdhOGCQ@nanopsycho>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 18:35:21 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, mlxsw@...dia.com, saeedm@...dia.com,
moshe@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 3/3] net: devlink: fix unlocked vs locked
functions descriptions
Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 06:30:37PM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:59:26 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>
>> + * Register devlink port with provided port index. User can use
>> + * any indexing, even hw-related one. devlink_port structure
>> + * is convenient to be embedded inside user driver private structure.
>> + * Note that the caller should take care of zeroing the devlink_port
>> + * structure.
>
>Should we also mention that the port type has to be set later?
>I guess that may be beyond the scope.
Let's do that in a separate patch. This is just to keep consistency
between devlink_ and devl_
>
>> + */
>
>> +/**
>> + * devlink_port_unregister - Unregister devlink port
>
>devl_
Right.
>
>> + *
>> + * @devlink_port: devlink port
>> + */
>
>I wonder if we should use this as an opportunity to start following
>the more modern kdoc format:
>
>No tab indentation, and () after the function's name.
>
>At least for the new kdoc we add.
Okay. Makes sense.
>
>> void devl_port_unregister(struct devlink_port *devlink_port)
>> {
>> lockdep_assert_held(&devlink_port->devlink->lock);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists