From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751413AbWF1Qdf (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:33:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751427AbWF1Qde (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:33:34 -0400 Received: from xenotime.net ([66.160.160.81]:40656 "HELO xenotime.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751413AbWF1Qdd (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:33:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:36:19 -0700 From: "Randy.Dunlap" To: Petr Tesarik Cc: info@kernel-api.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Kernel API Reference Documentation Message-Id: <20060628093619.6b9f2b8c.rdunlap@xenotime.net> In-Reply-To: <1151511215.8127.74.camel@elijah.suse.cz> References: <44A1858B.9080102@kernel-api.org> <1151495225.8127.68.camel@elijah.suse.cz> <44A2749D.7030705@kernel-api.org> <20060628090950.c1862a9e.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <1151511215.8127.74.camel@elijah.suse.cz> Organization: YPO4 X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.5 (GTK+ 2.8.3; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:13:35 +0200 Petr Tesarik wrote: > On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 09:09 -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:22:53 +0200 Lukas Jelinek wrote: > > > > > > I looked at > > > > http://www.kernel-api.org/docs/online/2.6.17/da/dab/structsk__buff.html > > > > > > > > and you apparently ignore kernel-doc for structs. Cf. > > > > include/linux/skbuff.h:177 ff. > > > > > > There are several problems. The one you describe is probably caused by a > > > blank line between the struct and the related comment. Doxygen doesn't > > > recognize it correctly (and simply ignores the comment). > > > > No blank line in this case. > > Oh, yes, there is a blank line between the comment and the struct. It's > a pitty that someone put much effort into writing a usable description, > which is then not seen. Anyway, should we find all such occurences in > the kernel tree and fix them, or make a workaround for doxygen? Which struct are we talking about here? I missed it. I guess the easy answer is Both. However, I'm working on fixing up the kernel tree, so sending patches is correct IMO. --- ~Randy