* [PATCH] regulator: fix fatal kernel-doc error
@ 2013-09-17 1:08 Randy Dunlap
2013-09-17 10:32 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Randy Dunlap @ 2013-09-17 1:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML, Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Liam Girdwood, Mark Brown
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Fix fatal kernel-doc error in <linux/regulator/driver.h>:
Error(include/linux/regulator/driver.h:52): cannot understand prototype: 'struct regulator_linear_range '
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
---
include/linux/regulator/driver.h | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
--- lnx-312-rc1.orig/include/linux/regulator/driver.h
+++ lnx-312-rc1/include/linux/regulator/driver.h
@@ -40,6 +40,8 @@ enum regulator_status {
};
/**
+ * struct regulator_linear_range - specify voltage ranges
+ *
* Specify a range of voltages for regulator_map_linar_range() and
* regulator_list_linear_range().
*
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] regulator: fix fatal kernel-doc error 2013-09-17 1:08 [PATCH] regulator: fix fatal kernel-doc error Randy Dunlap @ 2013-09-17 10:32 ` Mark Brown 2013-09-17 17:09 ` Randy Dunlap 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Mark Brown @ 2013-09-17 10:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Randy Dunlap; +Cc: LKML, Linus Torvalds, Liam Girdwood [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 543 bytes --] On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 06:08:02PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> > > Fix fatal kernel-doc error in <linux/regulator/driver.h>: > > Error(include/linux/regulator/driver.h:52): cannot understand prototype: 'struct regulator_linear_range ' Applied with the first line redone, but this seems like really terrible quality of implementation for the kernel-doc stuff - it shouldn't explode over something readily copable with like this. Should we also not pick this sort of thing up in -next? [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] regulator: fix fatal kernel-doc error 2013-09-17 10:32 ` Mark Brown @ 2013-09-17 17:09 ` Randy Dunlap 2013-09-17 19:23 ` Mark Brown 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Randy Dunlap @ 2013-09-17 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Brown; +Cc: LKML, Linus Torvalds, Liam Girdwood On 09/17/13 03:32, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 06:08:02PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> >> >> Fix fatal kernel-doc error in <linux/regulator/driver.h>: >> >> Error(include/linux/regulator/driver.h:52): cannot understand prototype: 'struct regulator_linear_range ' > > Applied with the first line redone, but this seems like really terrible > quality of implementation for the kernel-doc stuff - it shouldn't > explode over something readily copable with like this. Should we also > not pick this sort of thing up in -next? /** means kernel-doc syntax and it was not in proper kernel-doc format, but maybe it could just be a Warning instead of a fatal Error. Ideally we should pick it up in -next, of course, but I doubt that anyone is running kernel-doc on linux-next. I used to do that, but there are too many errors/warnings. I suppose that I could just concentrate on (fatal) Errors in linux-next and ignore the Warnings. -- ~Randy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] regulator: fix fatal kernel-doc error 2013-09-17 17:09 ` Randy Dunlap @ 2013-09-17 19:23 ` Mark Brown 2013-09-17 23:33 ` Fengguang Wu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Mark Brown @ 2013-09-17 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Randy Dunlap; +Cc: LKML, Linus Torvalds, Liam Girdwood, Wu Fengguang [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1098 bytes --] On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:09:24AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 09/17/13 03:32, Mark Brown wrote: > > Applied with the first line redone, but this seems like really terrible > > quality of implementation for the kernel-doc stuff - it shouldn't > > explode over something readily copable with like this. Should we also > > not pick this sort of thing up in -next? > /** means kernel-doc syntax and it was not in proper kernel-doc format, > but maybe it could just be a Warning instead of a fatal Error. Yes, that's what I'm saying - it really doesn't seem like something that should be a fatal error, that's far too fragile. > Ideally we should pick it up in -next, of course, but I doubt that anyone > is running kernel-doc on linux-next. I used to do that, but there are > too many errors/warnings. I suppose that I could just concentrate on > (fatal) Errors in linux-next and ignore the Warnings. Could these checks be added to Fengguang's tester? If nobody's looking at the output (I've never found the processed output useful myself) or running the tool then it's a bit worrying... [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] regulator: fix fatal kernel-doc error 2013-09-17 19:23 ` Mark Brown @ 2013-09-17 23:33 ` Fengguang Wu 2013-09-19 14:01 ` Mark Brown 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Fengguang Wu @ 2013-09-17 23:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Brown; +Cc: Randy Dunlap, LKML, Linus Torvalds, Liam Girdwood On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:23:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:09:24AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On 09/17/13 03:32, Mark Brown wrote: > > /** means kernel-doc syntax and it was not in proper kernel-doc format, > > but maybe it could just be a Warning instead of a fatal Error. > > Yes, that's what I'm saying - it really doesn't seem like something that > should be a fatal error, that's far too fragile. > > > Ideally we should pick it up in -next, of course, but I doubt that anyone > > is running kernel-doc on linux-next. I used to do that, but there are > > too many errors/warnings. I suppose that I could just concentrate on > > (fatal) Errors in linux-next and ignore the Warnings. > > Could these checks be added to Fengguang's tester? If nobody's looking > at the output (I've never found the processed output useful myself) or > running the tool then it's a bit worrying... Yes, I'm running "make htmldocs" checks and send out all new warnings: Sep 03 To Mark Brown ( 19:0) [regulator:topic/devm 5/15] Warning(drivers/regulator/core.c:3750): No description found for parameter 'dev' Sep 06 To Miklos Szere ( 20:0) [vfs:for-miklos 34/43] Warning(fs/dcache.c:1167): No description found for parameter 'data' Sep 10 To Waiman Long ( 22:0) [vfs:for-next 9/10] Warning(fs/dcache.c:102): No description found for parameter 'lock' Sep 11 To Lars-Peter C ( 25:0) [xlnx:master-next 96/99] Warning(drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c:1061): No description found for parameter 'data' Sep 12 To Brian Norris ( 13:0) [l2-mtd:master 9/11] Warning(include/linux/mtd/nand.h:587): Excess struct/union/enum/typedef member 'ecclayout' Does that sound enough? Thanks, Fengguang ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] regulator: fix fatal kernel-doc error 2013-09-17 23:33 ` Fengguang Wu @ 2013-09-19 14:01 ` Mark Brown 2013-09-19 15:26 ` Fengguang Wu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Mark Brown @ 2013-09-19 14:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fengguang Wu; +Cc: Randy Dunlap, LKML, Linus Torvalds, Liam Girdwood [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 589 bytes --] On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:33:28AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:23:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > Could these checks be added to Fengguang's tester? If nobody's looking > > at the output (I've never found the processed output useful myself) or > > running the tool then it's a bit worrying... > Yes, I'm running "make htmldocs" checks and send out all new warnings: > Does that sound enough? I'd expect it to be but then it seems like the issue that Randy found wasn't picked up... not sure if there's some other build that would cover it or something. [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] regulator: fix fatal kernel-doc error 2013-09-19 14:01 ` Mark Brown @ 2013-09-19 15:26 ` Fengguang Wu 2013-09-19 15:52 ` Mark Brown 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Fengguang Wu @ 2013-09-19 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Brown; +Cc: Randy Dunlap, LKML, Linus Torvalds, Liam Girdwood On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:01:31PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:33:28AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:23:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > Could these checks be added to Fengguang's tester? If nobody's looking > > > at the output (I've never found the processed output useful myself) or > > > running the tool then it's a bit worrying... > > > Yes, I'm running "make htmldocs" checks and send out all new warnings: > > > Does that sound enough? > > I'd expect it to be but then it seems like the issue that Randy found > wasn't picked up... not sure if there's some other build that would > cover it or something. Yes.. it was missed because the script used to only grep for "Warning(.*)" patterns and ignored the "Error(.*)" ones. Fixed since last email. Thanks, Fengguang ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] regulator: fix fatal kernel-doc error 2013-09-19 15:26 ` Fengguang Wu @ 2013-09-19 15:52 ` Mark Brown 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Mark Brown @ 2013-09-19 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fengguang Wu; +Cc: Randy Dunlap, LKML, Linus Torvalds, Liam Girdwood [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 469 bytes --] On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:26:26PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:01:31PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > I'd expect it to be but then it seems like the issue that Randy found > > wasn't picked up... not sure if there's some other build that would > > cover it or something. > Yes.. it was missed because the script used to only grep for > "Warning(.*)" patterns and ignored the "Error(.*)" ones. Fixed > since last email. Ah, great - thanks! [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-09-19 15:52 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-09-17 1:08 [PATCH] regulator: fix fatal kernel-doc error Randy Dunlap 2013-09-17 10:32 ` Mark Brown 2013-09-17 17:09 ` Randy Dunlap 2013-09-17 19:23 ` Mark Brown 2013-09-17 23:33 ` Fengguang Wu 2013-09-19 14:01 ` Mark Brown 2013-09-19 15:26 ` Fengguang Wu 2013-09-19 15:52 ` Mark Brown
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox