Re: [PATCH] x86: kernel: cpu: resctrl: Fix kernel-doc in pseudo_lock.c

[Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>]

Hi Fabio,

On 6/8/2021 1:12 PM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 1:30:34 AM CEST Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Fabio,
>>
> Hi Reinette,
>>
>> Thank you very much for catching these. I am curious what your goal is
>> because when I ran a kernel-doc check on the resctrl area there were
>> many more warnings than are not addressed in this patch. Also, while
>> this patch claims to fix the kernel-doc in pseudo_lock.c there seems to
>> be a few more that are not addressed.
>>
> Actually this patch was just a preliminary test for checking if my
> contributions to this subsystem would be taken into consideration or
> completely ignored. That is the real reason why I just started with trying to
> fix only a couple of kernel-doc issues in pseudo_lock.c.

Your submissions are appreciated and will be taken into consideration.

>> Are you planning to submit more
>> patches to do a cleanup of kernel-doc or are these the only ones
>> bothering you for some reason?
>>
> I'd like to submit more cleanup patches of kernel-doc, because I always read
> carefully the kernel-doc above the functions I want to understand. I have a
> long term plan to study the Linux code and try to contribute the better I can.
> I'm into Linux developing since about two months, so I'm a newcomer and I
> still have a lot to learn.
>>
>> Could you please fixup the subject to conform to this area:
>> "x86/resctrl: Fix kernel-doc in pseudo_lock.c"
>>
> Sure. I was inadvertently using the drivers/staging convention I've used for
> the patches I've submitted there.

Unfortunately the kernel is not consistent in this regard.
>> For this subject to be accurate though it should fix all the kernel-doc
>> warnings found in pseudo_lock.c - or if not it would be helpful to
>> explain what the criteria for fixes are. I tested this by running:
>> $ scripts/kernel-doc -v -none arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/*
>>
> I've just run the above script and I see that there are a lot more warnings
> that I was expecting.
> 
> I want to fix as much as I can. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure I won't be able
> to fix them all, just because the inner working and the purpose of some
> functions are a bit obscure to me (at least until I get more knowledge of x86
> architecture - it may take a lot of time because I'm also studying other
> subsystems at the same time).

...

> region
>>>
>>> + * @rdtgrp: resource group to which the pseudo-locked region belongs
>>> + * @sel: cache level selector
>>
>> This is not correct. A more accurate description could be:
>> "select which measurement to perform on pseudo-locked region"
>>
> Here it is an example of my lack of knowledge/experience. Obviously, I'll
> rewrite it according to your review.
> 
> To summarize: as soon as possible I'll submit a v2 patch with the kernel-doc
> fixes that I think I can understand. I am pretty sure that some fixes will not
> be to your standards and that for what regards some others I will not even be
> able to attempt to fix them :(
> 

Thank you for giving me insight into your status and plans. Your 
approach sounds reasonable to me. When you submit fixes to parts you 
understand I can provide feedback based on my understandings to 
collaborate towards improved kernel-doc in this area.

Thank you

Reinette