From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2B9E47ACE4; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 13:00:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792069258; cv=none; b=tx72oM2bfW8PTL4k1H+nx//EMg9bCpNUpdvdV5oqxN8wtXcwJBVmIA4jkWQjjO4ILFlAqSRQa3Qqm3rON3ueq77/YqSjKwwz2gVBkFCimfZ1Fa+wYDwyxkTXL0wP5PqkPIh4qw5LZzJDTXbCKOu9QIEFil9j3xqT0UkoBnz2jgw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792069258; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zkKSwzqobtkO50buLWMNOEnQsxnqkwYG6uach0BOGmo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=j+ASBaqFXIBvF+SjqbWCvDYlB+vWHE46xYwJXnsZfn94mqEkTBQup0annWBsIQMvozME5OJ8xPmV8No90UWntJnBqvnxh7HxJTJIZY/Lfsf6WeuP9RLylUambeocM5qzGxBNOppd66f1uwzm0p8l0CL/Pt6O2UHA5CK20uWVH9c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=DERIIPKu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="DERIIPKu" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 20D4D408F6 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1792069250; bh=RP/W6qL9Y9sy24N/XTNR7g/wdRCQod3TW5Vn48QZhOw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=DERIIPKuZ28chcZG/gwdW6ghWeGJWjr3oT/gL5Yc0GU0+VWYowGtxYPE5S/l64Kpf xwcvm5IdlpQtFxLYtn9k9J1eW3Nu9TiFkgSptEaJ2ao05i9CRhWVSDcl6VqfCuaGNF nRiT7YGLmUEffjhOhiZZ3TRSqXmRYzqCjoM/CKEoN5RKDtw1f+QbAXHQibbKcGmipx odd4ybaK77K3zaXzvqOUhaV9NVVDFFaGK/OTMVFXihk7Pqn79zFCMARvuLSfqZ/Sox 0jJ36ZWiXPPMFenMCV1vX8fD78/GAJnOn5JlrTWh/2l+eDOy+B2m7mMH0M7t/v3zNb JcVx5qcWc8w2A== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:814::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 20D4D408F6; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 13:00:50 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Omokefe Emmanuel Onanaroghene Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, mchehab@kernel.org, aleksandr.loktionov@intel.com, bvanassche@acm.org, tudor.ambarus@linaro.org, emmaonana18@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: kdoc: strip DOMAIN_NS() wrapper in function prototypes In-Reply-To: <20261015005314.7195-1-emmaonana18@gmail.com> References: <20261014224714.16922-1-emmaonana18@gmail.com> <20261015005314.7195-1-emmaonana18@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 07:00:49 -0600 Message-ID: <8733u7t8xq.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Omokefe Emmanuel Onanaroghene writes: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2026 11:22:02 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >>> Neither of these patches applies to docs-next...what did you base them >>> on? >> >> Hi Jon, >> >> I had mistakenly based both patches on mainline rather than docs-next. >> I have rebased both on top of docs-next and sent a v2 for each: >> >> - docs: kdoc: handle TRACE_EVENT_FN() family in tracepoint parser: >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261014223134.14772-1-emmaonana18@gmail.com/ >> >> - docs: kdoc: strip DOMAIN_NS() wrapper in function prototypes: >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261014223437.16164-1-emmaonana18@gmail.com/ >> > > I just noticed another mistake on my part, because I prepared > the two v2 patches on separate independent branches off docs-next, both > patches add their regression test at the exact same location in > tools/unittests/test_kdoc_parser.py (line 444). Applying them sequentially will > cause a merge conflict > > I didn't realize that patches modifying the exact same context in a file > should be stacked sequentially on a single branch as a patch series > rather than developed on separate branches. > > Should I respin them as a 2-patch series against docs-next, > or would you prefer to resolve when applying? Redo them as a two-patch series if you could. Thanks, jon