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 EB0173B636C; Fri, 15 May 2026 14:42:19 +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=1778856142; cv=none; b=LwxfUkYdCcLipgo+6eLBvf+SA1OFMRy8jxEk/RzJ3OTEXBKQo3Wev9rG5wEyY3MIrhIQel4eK1LSpoX4ENf1R4uIoXfecLgfGeSaAAzDOK92P36F7NIdpKRBKHMA6nugc7QUyFsvfNcFtvJ8HjXsTzGPf2vQ0xEztLsos5FN9qA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778856142; c=relaxed/simple; bh=91/MUJntMig6shlSdAm3Ao6hWgk5tAskd8lknBNlwE0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=OE9OXy5kuW9HcfZb9LITnO4ec7iCEu3zKCSG7j3fLobvkHu+IjW49WfdwZxOB0hgt5Z/R4ViCpAHRO+mGSsZV8oTufkQg/nsOkOw4eAeKHDDpZM4SW8Fc7PvbfwWQGiz3GrWWgAuTNLyqLbRAhK6Myq2599rddJdMpEGyj/kw30= 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=Qmqj3uWK; 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="Qmqj3uWK" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 16C05410B5 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1778856139; bh=eLCsVAMGqk1U7q51Akbtvr3X5ibRmVt2uWXhRXhFtPo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Qmqj3uWKKo9R1BtTyzT3TELCwi9u+qiDWVP40YonRVnSFSgY+vl898/UjHm3bioPR BMYThWqq/p5Pd9x944lBEcsSVTFvCI55gwohRXE1lRmGJAbkn+Tr3pN5JySZUMv2mW IMpQ2EULLtzhQTeO2Vbyz67AVNN/JuVvmDwARtz7BSzwBF6zR+gRf9v670XOVdDlET DSwYGsXr/Y5wKUk1GgTEQs+sOvSK7rz/+Db3KLwpzwh7oEOeBBsNysU6GxvGnNITG+ n2nSICM/KaAFKddHX6kXEYMKzblTWnkk3guTqYvj4W1cu4JimnEyp2D96JTAUyFy5Q Tnr5pUELptAIw== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:27b:67c:16ff:fe81:5f9b]) (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 16C05410B5; Fri, 15 May 2026 14:42:19 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Shuicheng Lin , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Cc: Shuicheng Lin , Randy Dunlap , Jani Nikula , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] scripts/kernel-doc: Detect mismatched inline member documentation tags In-Reply-To: <20260507023232.4108680-1-shuicheng.lin@intel.com> References: <20260507023232.4108680-1-shuicheng.lin@intel.com> Date: Fri, 15 May 2026 08:42:18 -0600 Message-ID: <87o6igpwdx.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 Shuicheng Lin writes: > Add validation in check_sections() to verify that inline member > documentation tags (/** @member: description */) match actual struct/union > member names. Previously, kernel-doc only validated section headers against > the parameter list, but inline doc tags stored in parameterdescs were never > cross-checked, allowing stale or mistyped member names to go undetected. > > The new check iterates over parameterdescs keys and warns about any that > don't appear in the parameter list, catching issues like renamed struct > members where the documentation tag was not updated to match. > > This catches real issues such as: > - xe_bo_types.h: @atomic_access (missing struct prefix, should be > @attr.atomic_access) > - xe_device_types.h: @usm.asid (member is actually asid_to_vm) Sigh ... naturally this adds a number of docs-build warnings, but they do seem to be legit. So I've applied it, thanks. In the future, please copy the maintainer(s) on your patches; scripts/get_maintainer.pl should have told you to do that. I almost missed this one entirely. jon