[PATCH] kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c - fix comment format

[PATCH] kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c - fix comment format

[Valdis Klētnieks]

  CC      kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.o
kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c:41: warning: cannot understand function prototype: 'struct trace_kprobe '

The real problem is that a comment looked like kerneldoc when it shouldn't be...

Signed-off-by: Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>

diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
index 9eaf07f99212..c825c591553a 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static struct dyn_event_operations trace_kprobe_ops = {
 	.match = trace_kprobe_match,
 };
 
-/**
+/*
  * Kprobe event core functions
  */
 struct trace_kprobe {

Re: [PATCH] kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c - fix comment format

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 04:58:32 -0400
"Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:

>   CC      kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.o
> kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c:41: warning: cannot understand function prototype: 'struct trace_kprobe '
> 
> The real problem is that a comment looked like kerneldoc when it shouldn't be...
> 
> Signed-off-by: Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
> index 9eaf07f99212..c825c591553a 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static struct dyn_event_operations trace_kprobe_ops = {
>  	.match = trace_kprobe_match,
>  };
>  
> -/**
> +/*

NACK.

This isn't a kernel doc comment, and I don't want to make it one when
it is not. Just ignore that warning.

-- Steve


>   * Kprobe event core functions
>   */
>  struct trace_kprobe {

Re: [PATCH] kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c - fix comment format

[Randy Dunlap]

On 3/12/19 8:01 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 04:58:32 -0400
> "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> 
>>   CC      kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.o
>> kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c:41: warning: cannot understand function prototype: 'struct trace_kprobe '
>>
>> The real problem is that a comment looked like kerneldoc when it shouldn't be...
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
>> index 9eaf07f99212..c825c591553a 100644
>> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
>> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
>> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static struct dyn_event_operations trace_kprobe_ops = {
>>  	.match = trace_kprobe_match,
>>  };
>>  
>> -/**
>> +/*
> 
> NACK.
> 
> This isn't a kernel doc comment, and I don't want to make it one when
> it is not. Just ignore that warning.
> 
> -- Steve

Huh?  The patch doesn't do that -- it does the opposite of that.
I.e., begin a non-kernel-doc comment with /* instead of /**.

> 
>>   * Kprobe event core functions
>>   */
>>  struct trace_kprobe {
> 


-- 
~Randy

Re: [PATCH] kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c - fix comment format

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:14:52 -0700
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:

> > NACK.
> > 
> > This isn't a kernel doc comment, and I don't want to make it one when
> > it is not. Just ignore that warning.
> > 
> > -- Steve  
> 
> Huh?  The patch doesn't do that -- it does the opposite of that.
> I.e., begin a non-kernel-doc comment with /* instead of /**.

Ah, my head swapped the "-" to the "+". I thought the patch
was adding the extra '*'. Nevermind, I'll take it.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Also, I'll change the subject to:

 trace/probes: Remove kernel doc style from non kernel doc comment

-- Steve

Re: [PATCH] kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c - fix comment format

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 05:08:30 -0400
valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 04:58:32 -0400, "Valdis Klētnieks" said:
> > 
> >   CC      kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.o
> > kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c:41: warning: cannot understand function prototype: 'struct trace_kprobe '
> >
> > The real problem is that a comment looked like kerneldoc when it shouldn't be...  
> 
> After finding another case of this, it's debatable whether the *REAL* real
> problem is that gcc is buggy/incomplete and doesn't know that kerneldoc
> comments can be applied to structure definitions as well....
> 
> What's the consensus?  Should I go yell at the gcc people instead, or?

Nevermind, I mistook your patch as adding a kernel doc comment.

It's fine, I'll take it.

Thanks!

-- Steve