From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Riemer Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_transport_srp: Fix kernel-doc warnings Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 13:53:57 +0100 Message-ID: <52CAA765.7090307@profitbricks.com> References: <52C0FE81.4080209@infradead.org> <52C8BB31.7020709@infradead.org> <52C92238.6060007@acm.org> <52C9C2FE.5000800@infradead.org> <52CA4F9F.20600@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-f41.google.com ([209.85.214.41]:62198 "EHLO mail-bk0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751722AbaAFMyB (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jan 2014 07:54:01 -0500 Received: by mail-bk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id v15so5753091bkz.0 for ; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 04:54:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52CA4F9F.20600@acm.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Bart Van Assche Cc: Randy Dunlap , "James E.J. Bottomley" , linux-scsi , David Dillow , Vu Pham , Douglas Gilbert On 06.01.2014 07:39, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 01/05/14 21:39, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 01/05/14 01:13, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>> The following command has been used to verify that the kernel-doc >>> tool no longer complains about undocumented fields: >>> >>> scripts/kernel-doc -html drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c \ >>> include/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.h >srp-transport-doc.html >> >> Thanks for the patch. >> I guess that your tree is different from mine. Using 3.13-rc7, I still get >> 3 warnings: >> >> Warning(drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c:620): No description found for parameter 'scmd' >> Warning(drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c:688): No description found for parameter 'rport' >> Warning(drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c:697): No description found for parameter 'rport' >> >> I also had some trouble with the patch itself -- looks like some of its longer >> lines were broken (split) by your mail app (I'm guessing). >> The first split line is marked below. > > Sorry but it seems like my e-mail client line-wrapped the patch. Does > the attached patch work better ? The attached patch should be identical > to what I posted except for the line wrapping. I do not see the warnings > mentioned above - maybe these were introduced by the line wrapping ? Hi Bart, the patch you've attached works fine and looks good. Thanks! Great work with the ib_srp code in 3.13 by the way! Acked-by: Sebastian Riemer Cheers, Sebastian