From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: fix fatal kernel-doc error
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:23:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130917192355.GK21013@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52388CC4.7040101@infradead.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1098 bytes --]
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:09:24AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 09/17/13 03:32, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Applied with the first line redone, but this seems like really terrible
> > quality of implementation for the kernel-doc stuff - it shouldn't
> > explode over something readily copable with like this. Should we also
> > not pick this sort of thing up in -next?
> /** means kernel-doc syntax and it was not in proper kernel-doc format,
> but maybe it could just be a Warning instead of a fatal Error.
Yes, that's what I'm saying - it really doesn't seem like something that
should be a fatal error, that's far too fragile.
> Ideally we should pick it up in -next, of course, but I doubt that anyone
> is running kernel-doc on linux-next. I used to do that, but there are
> too many errors/warnings. I suppose that I could just concentrate on
> (fatal) Errors in linux-next and ignore the Warnings.
Could these checks be added to Fengguang's tester? If nobody's looking
at the output (I've never found the processed output useful myself) or
running the tool then it's a bit worrying...
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-17 19:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-17 1:08 Randy Dunlap
2013-09-17 10:32 ` Mark Brown
2013-09-17 17:09 ` Randy Dunlap
2013-09-17 19:23 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2013-09-17 23:33 ` Fengguang Wu
2013-09-19 14:01 ` Mark Brown
2013-09-19 15:26 ` Fengguang Wu
2013-09-19 15:52 ` Mark Brown
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=20130917192355.GK21013@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®