From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Veaceslav Falico Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 07/27] net: add for_each iterators through neighbour lower link's private Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:29:17 +0200 Message-ID: <20130917122917.GB2929@redhat.com> References: <1379378812-18346-1-git-send-email-vfalico@redhat.com> <1379378812-18346-8-git-send-email-vfalico@redhat.com> <1379381203.23881.22.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> <20130917073618.GC18195@redhat.com> <1379418182.3457.2.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: Ben Hutchings , netdev@vger.kernel.org, jiri@resnulli.us, "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Alexander Duyck To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:4977 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752205Ab3IQMbM (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:31:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1379418182.3457.2.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 04:43:02AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: >On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 09:36 +0200, Veaceslav Falico wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:26:43AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> >On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 02:46 +0200, Veaceslav Falico wrote: >> >[...] >> >> --- a/net/core/dev.c >> >> +++ b/net/core/dev.c >> >> @@ -4537,6 +4537,72 @@ struct net_device *netdev_all_upper_get_next_dev_rcu(struct net_device *dev, >> >> } >> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(netdev_all_upper_get_next_dev_rcu); >> >> >> >> +/* netdev_lower_get_next_private - Get the next ->private from the >> >> + * lower neighbour list >> >[...] >> > >> >This is not correct kernel-doc syntax. You must begin the comment like >> >this: >> > >> >/** >> > * function_name - summary on one physical line, no wrapping allowed >> >> I've thought that netdev specifically requires that type of comments*. But >> I don't have any strong opinion on that, so if needed - can change easily >> in the next version. >> >> Thanks a lot! >> >> *Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt >> >> Q: Someone said that the comment style and coding convention is different >> for the networking content. Is this true? >> >> A: Yes, in a largely trivial way. Instead of this: >> >> /* >> * foobar blah blah blah >> * another line of text >> */ >> >> it is requested that you make it look like this: >> >> /* foobar blah blah blah >> * another line of text >> */ >> >> > >Thats for comments, not kernel-doc sections. > >You provided : > >+/* netdev_lower_get_next_private - Get the next ->private from the >+ * lower neighbour list >+ * @dev: device >+ * @iter: list_head ** of the current position >+ * >+ * Gets the next netdev_adjacent->private from the dev's lower neighbour >+ * list, starting from iter position. The caller must hold either hold the >+ * RTNL lock or its own locking that guarantees that the neighbour lower >+ * list will remain unchainged. If iter is NULL - return the first private. >+ */ > >Which really looks like a kernel-doc section, >but misses the proper delimiter which is : Ok, got it - will fix in the next version. Thanks all! > >/** > >Not > >/* > > >