public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH 1/3] kernel-doc: ignore __devinit
@ 2006-07-18 21:32 Randy Dunlap
  2006-07-19  7:00 ` Martin Waitz
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Randy Dunlap @ 2006-07-18 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: lkml; +Cc: akpm, tali

From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>

Ignore __devinit in function definitions so that kernel-doc won't
fail on them.

Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
---
 scripts/kernel-doc |    1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

--- linux-2618-rc2.orig/scripts/kernel-doc
+++ linux-2618-rc2/scripts/kernel-doc
@@ -1518,6 +1518,7 @@ sub dump_function($$) {
     $prototype =~ s/^asmlinkage +//;
     $prototype =~ s/^inline +//;
     $prototype =~ s/^__inline__ +//;
+    $prototype =~ s/__devinit +//;
     $prototype =~ s/^#define +//; #ak added
     $prototype =~ s/__attribute__ \(\([a-z,]*\)\)//;
 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 1/3] kernel-doc: ignore __devinit
  2006-07-18 21:32 [PATCH 1/3] kernel-doc: ignore __devinit Randy Dunlap
@ 2006-07-19  7:00 ` Martin Waitz
  2006-07-19 12:39   ` Randy.Dunlap
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Martin Waitz @ 2006-07-19  7:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Randy Dunlap; +Cc: lkml, akpm

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 328 bytes --]

hoi :)

On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 02:32:35PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
> 
> Ignore __devinit in function definitions so that kernel-doc won't
> fail on them.

why would it fall over __devinit?
And shouldn't we add __{dev}?init{data}? while we are at it?

-- 
Martin Waitz

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 1/3] kernel-doc: ignore __devinit
  2006-07-19  7:00 ` Martin Waitz
@ 2006-07-19 12:39   ` Randy.Dunlap
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2006-07-19 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Martin Waitz; +Cc: Randy Dunlap, lkml, akpm

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Martin Waitz wrote:

> hoi :)
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 02:32:35PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
> >
> > Ignore __devinit in function definitions so that kernel-doc won't
> > fail on them.
>
> why would it fall over __devinit?

It doesn't match any of those awful regex strings when
looking for function prototypes, so kernel-doc (the script)
coughs and dies, as noted in DocBook/kernel-api.tmpl
for drivers/pci/search.c.

> And shouldn't we add __{dev}?init{data}? while we are at it?

Yes, in theory at least (for __init and __exit, not __initdata,
since this is in function definitios).
I just haven't run into the need for those yet.

-- 
~Randy

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2006-07-19 12:39 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-07-18 21:32 [PATCH 1/3] kernel-doc: ignore __devinit Randy Dunlap
2006-07-19  7:00 ` Martin Waitz
2006-07-19 12:39   ` Randy.Dunlap

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox