From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1032479DCA; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:31:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706646711; cv=none; b=L9GvrxUW0OYVEKP+yA4x3hdkNIkyoCfqHdjF4w3O9hUyupFK03aA6unLV6tQv+vXEDN+uiAv8SoDUnVn3REqokxK1ToWUc8fGGWQzuGq0NYr6BTz/xSg1dMtGCwk2Uw9sCUVNEjHsxUuQxAr1feZwcZK9E33FPtTclhlL1+HvuE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706646711; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LOP+6Gd8XzSZncwRf7uGMAG0j2Ql64OEcnAO+AqFH8M=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=KHs26priTw032ZQks6zeD5XnamxGAhH1miQqjdY7CWvzARglp0u78MD+bwN670f2htTl7zoUR4Q/t3B/3OXdOkjzJFKRRupCf2QG1s1puuYctCtYio6kB12lUgdyS4m+BwE/XpL2TlorjBHklG84CgW3f6r6pnUoQQNrUyEtil4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=FY8eqXAx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="FY8eqXAx" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 33FB641A47 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1706646709; bh=EDJoJIFoiaWQo8LexHsdvIE4pZPld1QgS2DhtQSIQ2Q=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=FY8eqXAxH813hKcE8MPW5zA9a5xhZm0OSkdFqVn+CrIE21aVr4ep3/5/bbLPbwm5K rUj0ALrqZx0pKXMes1WafO/n2enLXwkfYlrwzCIZVpkSqw53liR5FnPxRd3VRTfEzd 4SbNbJ7ikXRYqV/0c8yVXzrxxw4zuElC6cmDqvgnkcTp+nuN8ajcgdlPGrsObS4j9X jPixq8zKDm0RH6qtBGsFn/MZk9sZiSCfI4a7Onin9aZqY/0w2Zl0+QjHdheLdy5/j0 ybLvrlEsO0ac39xiSTXDlcLCJWQmUkO+KeMfqMAUbLnmkL7M0xC9qIs1i1r4+s3IEk NAkpQ66r2uH4A== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:5e00:7e19::646]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 33FB641A47; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:31:49 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Daniel Vetter , Randy Dunlap Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] doc-guide: kernel-doc: tell about object-like macros In-Reply-To: References: <20240107012400.32587-1-rdunlap@infradead.org> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 13:31:48 -0700 Message-ID: <875xzabm17.fsf@meer.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Daniel Vetter writes: > On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 at 02:24, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> >> Since 2014 kernel-doc has supported describing object-like macros >> but it is not documented anywhere. I should have required some >> documentation for it when I merged the patch. :( >> >> There are currently only 3 uses of this (all in DRM headers, in >> include/drm/*.h). >> >> Add object-like macro kernel-doc documentation now so that more may >> know about it and use it. >> >> Fixes: cbb4d3e6510b ("scripts/kernel-doc: handle object-like macros") >> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap >> Cc: Jonathan Corbet >> Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org >> --- >> v2: Previous attempts to use kernel-doc were for data definitions, >> not macros, so remove that comment. >> Remove a duplicate word in the patch description. >> Add examples. > > Randy pointed to this in another thread and also mentioned that > function-like macros are already documented, so this also has my > > Acked-by: Daniel Vetter OK, I'm slowly catching up with the world...I've applied this in favor of Daniel's version. Thanks, jon