| Message ID | 20221107105657.19002-1-lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | notifier: repair slips in kernel-doc comments | expand |
On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 11:57 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> wrote: > > Invoking ./scripts/kernel-doc -none kernel/notifier.c warns: > > kernel/notifier.c:71: warning: Excess function parameter 'returns' description in 'notifier_call_chain' > kernel/notifier.c:119: warning: Function parameter or member 'v' not described in 'notifier_call_chain_robust' > > These two warning are easy to fix, as they are just due to some minor slips > that makes the comment not follow kernel-doc's syntactic expectation. > > Fix those minor slips in kernel-doc comments for make W=1 happiness. > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> > --- > Rafael, please pick this minor non-urgent patch for your pm tree. Thanks. Applied as 6.2 material, but I'm kind of wondering why you decided to send this to me. > > kernel/notifier.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/notifier.c b/kernel/notifier.c > index 0d5bd62c480e..ab75637fd904 100644 > --- a/kernel/notifier.c > +++ b/kernel/notifier.c > @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static int notifier_chain_unregister(struct notifier_block **nl, > * value of this parameter is -1. > * @nr_calls: Records the number of notifications sent. Don't care > * value of this field is NULL. > - * @returns: notifier_call_chain returns the value returned by the > + * Return: notifier_call_chain returns the value returned by the > * last notifier function called. > */ > static int notifier_call_chain(struct notifier_block **nl, > @@ -105,13 +105,13 @@ NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(notifier_call_chain); > * @val_up: Value passed unmodified to the notifier function > * @val_down: Value passed unmodified to the notifier function when recovering > * from an error on @val_up > - * @v Pointer passed unmodified to the notifier function > + * @v: Pointer passed unmodified to the notifier function > * > * NOTE: It is important the @nl chain doesn't change between the two > * invocations of notifier_call_chain() such that we visit the > * exact same notifier callbacks; this rules out any RCU usage. > * > - * Returns: the return value of the @val_up call. > + * Return: the return value of the @val_up call. > */ > static int notifier_call_chain_robust(struct notifier_block **nl, > unsigned long val_up, unsigned long val_down, > -- > 2.17.1 >
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 7:34 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 11:57 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Invoking ./scripts/kernel-doc -none kernel/notifier.c warns: > > > > kernel/notifier.c:71: warning: Excess function parameter 'returns' description in 'notifier_call_chain' > > kernel/notifier.c:119: warning: Function parameter or member 'v' not described in 'notifier_call_chain_robust' > > > > These two warning are easy to fix, as they are just due to some minor slips > > that makes the comment not follow kernel-doc's syntactic expectation. > > > > Fix those minor slips in kernel-doc comments for make W=1 happiness. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> > > --- > > Rafael, please pick this minor non-urgent patch for your pm tree. Thanks. > > Applied as 6.2 material, but I'm kind of wondering why you decided to > send this to me. > Well, kernel/notifier.c is one of those files, with no specific maintainer and no specific obvious subsystem... so the next patch goes to the last one touching it ;) More seriously: get_maintainer.pl -f kernel/notifier.c does state: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> (commit_signer:2/3=67%) Rafael, you took the only two patches in 2022 and carried them forward to Linus. So, that was my thinking for this minor patch as well; no deeper thought than that. If you would not have accepted them, I might have tried Andrew Morton in a few weeks for the next merge window (v6.3) as a last resort. Rafael, thanks for picking up this patch. Lukas > > > > kernel/notifier.c | 6 +++--- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/notifier.c b/kernel/notifier.c > > index 0d5bd62c480e..ab75637fd904 100644 > > --- a/kernel/notifier.c > > +++ b/kernel/notifier.c > > @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static int notifier_chain_unregister(struct notifier_block **nl, > > * value of this parameter is -1. > > * @nr_calls: Records the number of notifications sent. Don't care > > * value of this field is NULL. > > - * @returns: notifier_call_chain returns the value returned by the > > + * Return: notifier_call_chain returns the value returned by the > > * last notifier function called. > > */ > > static int notifier_call_chain(struct notifier_block **nl, > > @@ -105,13 +105,13 @@ NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(notifier_call_chain); > > * @val_up: Value passed unmodified to the notifier function > > * @val_down: Value passed unmodified to the notifier function when recovering > > * from an error on @val_up > > - * @v Pointer passed unmodified to the notifier function > > + * @v: Pointer passed unmodified to the notifier function > > * > > * NOTE: It is important the @nl chain doesn't change between the two > > * invocations of notifier_call_chain() such that we visit the > > * exact same notifier callbacks; this rules out any RCU usage. > > * > > - * Returns: the return value of the @val_up call. > > + * Return: the return value of the @val_up call. > > */ > > static int notifier_call_chain_robust(struct notifier_block **nl, > > unsigned long val_up, unsigned long val_down, > > -- > > 2.17.1 > >
diff --git a/kernel/notifier.c b/kernel/notifier.c index 0d5bd62c480e..ab75637fd904 100644 --- a/kernel/notifier.c +++ b/kernel/notifier.c @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static int notifier_chain_unregister(struct notifier_block **nl, * value of this parameter is -1. * @nr_calls: Records the number of notifications sent. Don't care * value of this field is NULL. - * @returns: notifier_call_chain returns the value returned by the + * Return: notifier_call_chain returns the value returned by the * last notifier function called. */ static int notifier_call_chain(struct notifier_block **nl, @@ -105,13 +105,13 @@ NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(notifier_call_chain); * @val_up: Value passed unmodified to the notifier function * @val_down: Value passed unmodified to the notifier function when recovering * from an error on @val_up - * @v Pointer passed unmodified to the notifier function + * @v: Pointer passed unmodified to the notifier function * * NOTE: It is important the @nl chain doesn't change between the two * invocations of notifier_call_chain() such that we visit the * exact same notifier callbacks; this rules out any RCU usage. * - * Returns: the return value of the @val_up call. + * Return: the return value of the @val_up call. */ static int notifier_call_chain_robust(struct notifier_block **nl, unsigned long val_up, unsigned long val_down,
Invoking ./scripts/kernel-doc -none kernel/notifier.c warns: kernel/notifier.c:71: warning: Excess function parameter 'returns' description in 'notifier_call_chain' kernel/notifier.c:119: warning: Function parameter or member 'v' not described in 'notifier_call_chain_robust' These two warning are easy to fix, as they are just due to some minor slips that makes the comment not follow kernel-doc's syntactic expectation. Fix those minor slips in kernel-doc comments for make W=1 happiness. Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> --- Rafael, please pick this minor non-urgent patch for your pm tree. Thanks. kernel/notifier.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)