From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nested structs parsing
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:22:09 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180329112209.5c0e0320@vento.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1522316827.5932.11.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Em Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:47:07 +0200
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> escreveu:
> On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 11:46 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > For a while I haven't looked at my documentation for 802.11, and now I
> > noticed I'm getting warnings due to the nested parsing.
> >
> > However, something seems to be wrong? I have, for example, this (in
> > net/mac80211/sta_info.h)
> >
> > struct sta_info {
> > ...
> > struct {
> > u64 packets[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
> > u64 bytes[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
> > struct ieee80211_tx_rate last_rate;
> > u64 msdu[IEEE80211_NUM_TIDS + 1];
> > } tx_stats;
> > };
> >
> > but I'm getting the following warnings now, with only "@tx_stats" being
> > described in the documentation:
> >
> > net/mac80211/sta_info.h:590: warning: Function parameter or member 'status_stats.last_ack' not described in 'sta_info'
> > net/mac80211/sta_info.h:590: warning: Function parameter or member 'status_stats.last_ack_signal' not described in 'sta_info'
> > net/mac80211/sta_info.h:590: warning: Function parameter or member 'status_stats.ack_signal_filled' not described in 'sta_info'
> > net/mac80211/sta_info.h:590: warning: Function parameter or member 'msdu' not described in 'sta_info'
> >
> > I can understand the first three of those, but not the last one? Why is
> > the last one not qualified?
> >
> > If I change it to this:
> >
> > struct {
> > u64 packets[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
> > u64 bytes[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
> > /**
> > * @last_rate: last TX rate
> > */
> > struct ieee80211_tx_rate last_rate;
> > /**
> > * @msdu: # of MSDUs per TID
> > */
> > u64 msdu[IEEE80211_NUM_TIDS + 1];
> > } tx_stats;
> >
> > I still get a warning on "tx_stats.last_rate", but not on "msdu", which
> > is sort of obvious from the warning text, but also rather unexpected.
> >
> > Normally I'd say that the "msdu" warning is originally wrong
> >
> > However, I'd also argue that if I'm using inline declarations, I
> > shouldn't have to write it like this:
> >
> > struct {
> > u64 packets[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
> > u64 bytes[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
> > /**
> > * @tx_stats.last_rate: last TX rate
> > */
> > struct ieee80211_tx_rate last_rate;
> > ...
> > } tx_stats;
>
> Whoops, sent a fraction of a second too early - this actually causes a
> warning too (no idea why four times):
>
> net/mac80211/sta_info.h:560: warning: Incorrect use of kernel-doc format: * @tx_stats.last_rate: last TX rate
> net/mac80211/sta_info.h:560: warning: Incorrect use of kernel-doc format: * @tx_stats.last_rate: last TX rate
> net/mac80211/sta_info.h:560: warning: Incorrect use of kernel-doc format: * @tx_stats.last_rate: last TX rate
> net/mac80211/sta_info.h:560: warning: Incorrect use of kernel-doc format: * @tx_stats.last_rate: last TX rate
The original patchset for nested structs was supporting it only
when not inlined. This should be fixed on this patchset:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/19/387
Do you have those patches on your tree?
With regards to duplicated warnings, that use to happen if the same header
is included several times (with is a common pratice at the net subsystem).
I also submitted some patches to linux-next addressing it.
Could you please merge from docs-next and see if those problems
get solved?
It is located at:
git://git.lwn.net/linux.git docs-next
Thanks,
Mauro
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nested structs parsing
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:22:09 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180329112209.5c0e0320@vento.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1522316827.5932.11.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Em Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:47:07 +0200
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> escreveu:
> On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 11:46 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > For a while I haven't looked at my documentation for 802.11, and now I
> > noticed I'm getting warnings due to the nested parsing.
> >
> > However, something seems to be wrong? I have, for example, this (in
> > net/mac80211/sta_info.h)
> >
> > struct sta_info {
> > ...
> > struct {
> > u64 packets[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
> > u64 bytes[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
> > struct ieee80211_tx_rate last_rate;
> > u64 msdu[IEEE80211_NUM_TIDS + 1];
> > } tx_stats;
> > };
> >
> > but I'm getting the following warnings now, with only "@tx_stats" being
> > described in the documentation:
> >
> > net/mac80211/sta_info.h:590: warning: Function parameter or member 'status_stats.last_ack' not described in 'sta_info'
> > net/mac80211/sta_info.h:590: warning: Function parameter or member 'status_stats.last_ack_signal' not described in 'sta_info'
> > net/mac80211/sta_info.h:590: warning: Function parameter or member 'status_stats.ack_signal_filled' not described in 'sta_info'
> > net/mac80211/sta_info.h:590: warning: Function parameter or member 'msdu' not described in 'sta_info'
> >
> > I can understand the first three of those, but not the last one? Why is
> > the last one not qualified?
> >
> > If I change it to this:
> >
> > struct {
> > u64 packets[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
> > u64 bytes[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
> > /**
> > * @last_rate: last TX rate
> > */
> > struct ieee80211_tx_rate last_rate;
> > /**
> > * @msdu: # of MSDUs per TID
> > */
> > u64 msdu[IEEE80211_NUM_TIDS + 1];
> > } tx_stats;
> >
> > I still get a warning on "tx_stats.last_rate", but not on "msdu", which
> > is sort of obvious from the warning text, but also rather unexpected.
> >
> > Normally I'd say that the "msdu" warning is originally wrong
> >
> > However, I'd also argue that if I'm using inline declarations, I
> > shouldn't have to write it like this:
> >
> > struct {
> > u64 packets[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
> > u64 bytes[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
> > /**
> > * @tx_stats.last_rate: last TX rate
> > */
> > struct ieee80211_tx_rate last_rate;
> > ...
> > } tx_stats;
>
> Whoops, sent a fraction of a second too early - this actually causes a
> warning too (no idea why four times):
>
> net/mac80211/sta_info.h:560: warning: Incorrect use of kernel-doc format: * @tx_stats.last_rate: last TX rate
> net/mac80211/sta_info.h:560: warning: Incorrect use of kernel-doc format: * @tx_stats.last_rate: last TX rate
> net/mac80211/sta_info.h:560: warning: Incorrect use of kernel-doc format: * @tx_stats.last_rate: last TX rate
> net/mac80211/sta_info.h:560: warning: Incorrect use of kernel-doc format: * @tx_stats.last_rate: last TX rate
The original patchset for nested structs was supporting it only
when not inlined. This should be fixed on this patchset:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/19/387
Do you have those patches on your tree?
With regards to duplicated warnings, that use to happen if the same header
is included several times (with is a common pratice at the net subsystem).
I also submitted some patches to linux-next addressing it.
Could you please merge from docs-next and see if those problems
get solved?
It is located at:
git://git.lwn.net/linux.git docs-next
Thanks,
Mauro
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-29 14:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-29 9:46 nested structs parsing Johannes Berg
2018-03-29 9:46 ` Johannes Berg
2018-03-29 9:47 ` Johannes Berg
2018-03-29 9:47 ` Johannes Berg
2018-03-29 14:22 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab [this message]
2018-03-29 14:22 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-03-29 14:26 ` Johannes Berg
2018-03-29 14:26 ` Johannes Berg
2018-03-29 14:48 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-03-29 14:48 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180329112209.5c0e0320@vento.lan \
--to=mchehab@s-opensource.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.