* [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