From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel-doc: handle X86 DEFINE_IDTENTRY() variants
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2024 13:30:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87il4a9n37.fsf@meer.lwn.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240102061700.3807-1-rdunlap@infradead.org>
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> writes:
> Teach scripts/kernel-doc to handle the various DEFINE_IDTENTRY*() flavors.
>
> This corrects 2 kernel-doc warnings:
>
> arch/x86/entry/common.c:211: warning: expecting prototype for int80_emulation(). Prototype was for DEFINE_IDTENTRY_RAW() instead
>
> arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2170: warning: expecting prototype for spurious_interrupt(). Prototype was for DEFINE_IDTENTRY_IRQ() instead
>
> The script uses 'uname -m' to determine if it is running on i386 or x86_64
> or something else. It also uses "ARCH=<arch>" in the environment variables
> to allow for overriding the processed ARCH.
>
> Alternatively, we could remove the "/**" kernel-doc markers from those
> 2 functions. There are 60 uses of DEFINE_IDTENTRY*() that I see and
> only 2 of them have kernel-doc comments.
So I feel like I'm missing something here; the docs build should be the
same regardless of the architecture it's running on, right? So why do
we need architecture checks in kernel-doc?
Honestly, it might be better to just remove the kerneldoc comments
rather than add this much more complexity.
Thanks,
jon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-03 20:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-02 6:17 [RFC PATCH] kernel-doc: handle X86 DEFINE_IDTENTRY() variants Randy Dunlap
2024-01-03 20:30 ` Jonathan Corbet [this message]
2024-01-03 22:15 ` Randy Dunlap
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=87il4a9n37.fsf@meer.lwn.net \
--to=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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