From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A8EC2BB85 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 08:56:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B572078B for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 08:56:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="ZB0SB3T3" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2502985AbgDPI4u (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2020 04:56:50 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41484 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2503037AbgDPI4D (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2020 04:56:03 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-x343.google.com (mail-ot1-x343.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::343]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03571C061A10 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 01:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x343.google.com with SMTP id g14so2424112otg.10 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 01:56:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aCt/25bZqDvJVBbS2T/nSkaf4i35Ayu5fc8C9w+DSHs=; b=ZB0SB3T3b/D2aou2Jlt1WAGRUEG6DPFL8ORrU5aJDGvS4RRldCBtGq2u7ipF43i5+e m/n8V+goLmrO0pw+8cjm6JNzoJXnwPETMIFcZ+HOgQKONpKf2OP/Px6JmiJdtlW6Sikt E3E3/GJMs9fYI7obYF+mrWBKiHyFnQ20T5a6caWaCncQ5gNuRPc+kBFKK/F10B5w47KA XAe6XDI71mypF0rmtCrEAH5exDprf+LakqHYHxw/kMhdR3F1XHquGELfQY2VnTq3M5x/ f0+zXtyA5UD23Mhql3kdSSsqXZ4unrLQGx8xVdKvGxAjOycZ13qziMAOsaemXu4l2ASR QbiQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aCt/25bZqDvJVBbS2T/nSkaf4i35Ayu5fc8C9w+DSHs=; b=uVomFmkI9dJEHMwYwSZ9JEFwe87Wq3vGeGYuLC1LT689zzcWyNE4iuc0HAqjsSoTQh ZqdaaKNKK6tb2v8XtIwW3VntvgFQsCd768Io447XOoo2MwYVpiL7fcOh0AnBK7vPDwWP SIMqYcjPi3ccHBnBZHwA+FG/KkIaThXqw2JWy8ESjCmZgsyQroXMlSZWBQc+xJcEr4Ik OSrwBrpk/qLjXM+ycWF2VYPFIU8ow0hYD4Ey/9d8JD44Bn/ByNKr48HE8HOSmW9AfWFu YV+IHRyM69wXG5XKf+XLQDCCvZP7Y45hhQNTSuMhMuTsO+0QbJCiR2YpmUyhzrIveHAC zYsQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubMfzXempU5y2LERDJFFwYwEhS3hHZfgacdmNbdlIr4DVmkp0qG 4L/WdSTn9mmdeVIaYeIvUA9kgovKjCLlSIsppeD3dA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypL2lhwIWiAZBB0Q4t1XxMP5gwqrnEPMEO5qsx7kwPdeLMRsCyvcU6J1wF1QmqGUwY3+rdRxCitBqx9DG5FCrOM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1f39:: with SMTP id e25mr26276595oth.135.1587027360244; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 01:56:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200414143743.32677-1-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <20200415151132.03cad507@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <20200415151132.03cad507@lwn.net> From: Peter Maydell Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:55:49 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/kernel-doc: Add missing close-paren in c:function directives To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , lkml - Kernel Mailing List , Paolo Bonzini Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 22:11, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 15:37:43 +0100 > Peter Maydell wrote: > > When kernel-doc generates a 'c:function' directive for a function > > one of whose arguments is a function pointer, it fails to print > > the close-paren after the argument list of the function pointer > > argument. For instance: > > > > long work_on_cpu(int cpu, long (*fn) (void *, void * arg) > Interesting. This appears to have affected well over 100 function > definitions in the docs, and nobody ever noticed. Good to know we're all > reading it closely :) Heh; I think my conclusion is "function signatures for APIs which don't provide and use a typedef for function-pointer-arguments are sufficiently hard to read that people don't notice simple errors in them", but then I prefer the with-typedef style to start with :-) thanks -- PMM