From: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
To: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
Cc: <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v1 11/11] drivers/net/ethernet: clean up mis-targeted comments
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 22:55:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e2e637ae-8cda-c9a4-91ce-93dbd475fc0c@solarflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200911144207.00005619@intel.com>
On 11/09/2020 22:42, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> Thanks Ed, I think I might just remove the /** on that function then
> (removing it from kdoc processing)
I dunno, that means
a) kerneldoc won't generate html for this struct
b) new additions to the struct without corresponding kerneldoc won't
generate warnings
both of which are not ideal outcomes.
I realise there's value in having totally warning-clean code, but in
this case I think this one warning, even though it's indicating a
toolchain problem rather than a codebase problem, should better stay
(if only to put pressure on the toolchain to fix it).
Otherwise, when and if the toolchain is fixed, what's the chance we'll
remember to put the /** back?
That's just my opinion, though; I won't block patches that disagree.
-ed
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH net-next v1 11/11] drivers/net/ethernet: clean up mis-targeted comments
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 22:55:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e2e637ae-8cda-c9a4-91ce-93dbd475fc0c@solarflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200911144207.00005619@intel.com>
On 11/09/2020 22:42, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> Thanks Ed, I think I might just remove the /** on that function then
> (removing it from kdoc processing)
I dunno, that means
a) kerneldoc won't generate html for this struct
b) new additions to the struct without corresponding kerneldoc won't
?? generate warnings
?both of which are not ideal outcomes.
I realise there's value in having totally warning-clean code, but in
?this case I think this one warning, even though it's indicating a
?toolchain problem rather than a codebase problem, should better stay
?(if only to put pressure on the toolchain to fix it).
Otherwise, when and if the toolchain is fixed, what's the chance we'll
?remember to put the /** back?
That's just my opinion, though; I won't block patches that disagree.
-ed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-11 21:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-11 1:23 [RFC PATCH net-next v1 00/11] make drivers/net/ethernet W=1 clean Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v1 01/11] i40e: prepare flash string in a simpler way Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v1 02/11] i40e: clean up W=1 warnings in i40e Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-23 2:02 ` Brown, Aaron F
2020-09-23 2:02 ` Brown, Aaron F
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v1 03/11] iavf: clean up W=1 warnings in iavf Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-23 3:12 ` Brown, Aaron F
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v1 04/11] ixgbe: clean up W=1 warnings in ixgbe Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-23 3:57 ` Brown, Aaron F
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v1 05/11] intel-ethernet: make W=1 build cleanly Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 17:43 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-09-11 17:43 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2020-09-11 23:06 ` Jacob Keller
2020-09-11 23:28 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 23:28 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v1 06/11] drivers/net/ethernet: clean up unused assignments Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 17:16 ` Edward Cree
2020-09-11 17:16 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Edward Cree
2020-09-11 23:03 ` Jacob Keller
2020-09-11 23:18 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v1 07/11] drivers/net/ethernet: rid ethernet of no-prototype warnings Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v1 08/11] drivers/net/ethernet: handle one warning explicitly Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 22:56 ` Jacob Keller
2020-09-11 22:56 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jacob Keller
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v1 09/11] drivers/net/ethernet: add some basic kdoc tags Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v1 10/11] drivers/net/ethernet: remove incorrectly formatted doc Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 22:59 ` Jacob Keller
2020-09-11 23:25 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-14 23:06 ` Jacob Keller
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v1 11/11] drivers/net/ethernet: clean up mis-targeted comments Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 1:23 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 17:26 ` Edward Cree
2020-09-11 17:26 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Edward Cree
2020-09-11 21:42 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 21:42 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 21:55 ` Edward Cree [this message]
2020-09-11 21:55 ` Edward Cree
2020-09-11 22:26 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-09-11 22:26 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
2020-09-11 23:11 ` Edward Cree
2020-09-11 23:11 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Edward Cree
2020-09-12 0:49 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-12 0:49 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-14 3:04 ` Andrew Lunn
2020-09-14 3:04 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Andrew Lunn
2020-09-11 14:55 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v1 00/11] make drivers/net/ethernet W=1 clean Jakub Kicinski
2020-09-11 14:55 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
2020-09-11 19:00 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 19:00 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 20:12 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-09-11 20:12 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
2020-09-11 21:34 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 21:34 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesse Brandeburg
2020-09-11 22:16 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-09-11 22:16 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
2020-09-11 22:43 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-09-11 22:43 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Vladimir Oltean
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=e2e637ae-8cda-c9a4-91ce-93dbd475fc0c@solarflare.com \
--to=ecree@solarflare.com \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.