From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: nested structs parsing
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:46:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1522316775.5932.10.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
Hi,
For a while I haven't looked at my documentation for 802.11, and now I
noticed I'm getting warnings due to the nested parsing.
However, something seems to be wrong? I have, for example, this (in
net/mac80211/sta_info.h)
struct sta_info {
...
struct {
u64 packets[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
u64 bytes[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
struct ieee80211_tx_rate last_rate;
u64 msdu[IEEE80211_NUM_TIDS + 1];
} tx_stats;
};
but I'm getting the following warnings now, with only "@tx_stats" being
described in the documentation:
net/mac80211/sta_info.h:590: warning: Function parameter or member 'status_stats.last_ack' not described in 'sta_info'
net/mac80211/sta_info.h:590: warning: Function parameter or member 'status_stats.last_ack_signal' not described in 'sta_info'
net/mac80211/sta_info.h:590: warning: Function parameter or member 'status_stats.ack_signal_filled' not described in 'sta_info'
net/mac80211/sta_info.h:590: warning: Function parameter or member 'msdu' not described in 'sta_info'
I can understand the first three of those, but not the last one? Why is
the last one not qualified?
If I change it to this:
struct {
u64 packets[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
u64 bytes[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
/**
* @last_rate: last TX rate
*/
struct ieee80211_tx_rate last_rate;
/**
* @msdu: # of MSDUs per TID
*/
u64 msdu[IEEE80211_NUM_TIDS + 1];
} tx_stats;
I still get a warning on "tx_stats.last_rate", but not on "msdu", which
is sort of obvious from the warning text, but also rather unexpected.
Normally I'd say that the "msdu" warning is originally wrong
However, I'd also argue that if I'm using inline declarations, I
shouldn't have to write it like this:
struct {
u64 packets[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
u64 bytes[IEEE80211_NUM_ACS];
/**
* @tx_stats.last_rate: last TX rate
*/
struct ieee80211_tx_rate last_rate;
...
} tx_stats;
since the comment is contained in the scope of tx_stats already, but
that seems to be what I'd have to do today?
At least fixing one of these to make it consistent would be good :-)
Thanks,
johannes
next reply other threads:[~2018-03-29 9:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-29 9:46 Johannes Berg [this message]
2018-03-29 9:47 ` nested structs parsing Johannes Berg
2018-03-29 14:22 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2018-03-29 14:26 ` Johannes Berg
2018-03-29 14:48 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1522316775.5932.10.camel@sipsolutions.net \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@s-opensource.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).