Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: fix comments of packet integrity flow item

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

19/05/2021 18:53, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 5/19/2021 5:27 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > The Doxygen comments are placed before the related lines,
> > but the markers were /**< instead of /**
> > 
> > Fixes: b10a421a1f3b ("ethdev: add packet integrity check flow rules")
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > ---
> >  lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h | 18 +++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > index 94c8c1ccc8..d7e0082dc7 100644
> > --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > @@ -1708,7 +1708,7 @@ rte_flow_item_geneve_opt_mask = {
> >  #endif
> >  
> >  struct rte_flow_item_integrity {
> > -	/**< Tunnel encapsulation level the item should apply to.
> > +	/** Tunnel encapsulation level the item should apply to.
> >  	 * @see rte_flow_action_rss
> >  	 */
> >  	uint32_t level;
> > @@ -1716,21 +1716,21 @@ struct rte_flow_item_integrity {
> >  	union {
> >  		__extension__
> >  		struct {
> > -			/**< The packet is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> > +			/** The packet is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> >  			uint64_t packet_ok:1;
> > -			/**< L2 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> > +			/** L2 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> >  			uint64_t l2_ok:1;
> > -			/**< L3 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> > +			/** L3 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> >  			uint64_t l3_ok:1;
> > -			/**< L4 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> > +			/** L4 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> >  			uint64_t l4_ok:1;
> > -			/**< L2 layer CRC is valid. */
> > +			/** L2 layer CRC is valid. */
> >  			uint64_t l2_crc_ok:1;
> > -			/**< IPv4 layer checksum is valid. */
> > +			/** IPv4 layer checksum is valid. */
> >  			uint64_t ipv4_csum_ok:1;
> > -			/**< L4 layer checksum is valid. */
> > +			/** L4 layer checksum is valid. */
> >  			uint64_t l4_csum_ok:1;
> > -			/**< The l3 length is smaller than the frame length. */
> > +			/** L3 length is smaller than frame length. */
> >  			uint64_t l3_len_ok:1;
> >  			uint64_t reserved:56;
> >  		};
> > 
> 
> +1 to fix but the struct is not listed at all in the API documentation, because
> it is missing Doxygen comment for the struct itself.
> 
> Can it be possible to add a doxygen comment for the struct, even it is very
> basic, to enable it to be documented?

Yes OK