From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (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 446EC5A117; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 10:54:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706007273; cv=none; b=UMED0ri3TOXGFxzTAWpQCSNunxIibxwL1uiJ77AHi6j0fci4+elCPvOa8o2eRCViZx1rRWDAN3X9Y4zRwQjSYKaQ9zM0NmvCTqeKUKoYgllAzlvYr1j8srRV5BhBR37QlSOQoEziFKgl1QqSNWcIG5rofJVpTx76LBgjomWFIU4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706007273; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9fuGklmKHGIDBITeyJhohHRwWbW9LwpJhkLb3dVONxM=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=tLKyxnV0kZOaeoIA+lHL53vd9RtGdvDMObRleXmE+yOxq57ehsklNGkFTk2I+BvgTtRdRu8SMqT5pypLjMltcC74c0OAJQBhjJprRnj8fFcnQ3/guPs8bje8CW6JKi+omFBCmYiakkMoPtmQg3RBUOB1j1GLEXKjm7lA3MGkm2s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=v4ZjgPin; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="v4ZjgPin" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=9fuGklmKHGIDBITeyJhohHRwWbW9LwpJhkLb3dVONxM=; t=1706007271; x=1707216871; b=v4ZjgPinhwrRyURSMgJVKHTjzCOZnqNL423q5JFPbsvp2X7 3eAdCKfv9YB7Vt5W1l9dgR9OHK064sm2b9ubOgS77gisPpU52UbWqkPljIs6VTgVMLpCB2tRlGgSz JIPzLh4bw1UF8FHTTXQurCuaAhZe8sRl1AzJiXPhfrcHL/+Y5guPIL1ObNCBd0/c9ln1NGzho3Smr /ZuexTJbf+9GguaVcgwzhywn/OEL5njll1XkFcQz9eYS2R2o/dNQuZOU4HvoqaQmGxVA/sEw64NdP J56aYmO7tWVorOD/xV8wSptfL3PUCrO8zQRvbMD36Ml6O/nB9T8u+E+GfiUhmm8Q==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rSEPp-0000000EyuD-23sF; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 11:54:01 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] kernel-doc: Remove deprecated kernel-doc option 'functions' From: Johannes Berg To: Anna-Maria Behnsen , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Cc: Jonathan Corbet , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , x86@kernel.org, Mike Rapoport , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Marco Elver , Alexander Potapenko , Shuah Khan , Moritz Fischer , Wu Hao , Xu Yilun , Dipen Patel , Philipp Zabel , Heikki Krogerus , David Airlie , Daniel Vetter , Maarten Lankhorst , Maxime Ripard , Thomas Zimmermann , Jiri Kosina , Benjamin Tissoires , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 11:53:59 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20240122132820.46633-1-anna-maria@linutronix.de> References: <20240122132820.46633-1-anna-maria@linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.3 (3.50.3-1.fc39) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Mon, 2024-01-22 at 14:28 +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote: > the kernel-doc option 'functions' is marked deprecated and is simply an > alias for 'identifiers' Is it actually a good idea though that it's deprecated and an alias? I mean, we have a problem today that sphinx/kernel-doc/whatever cannot deal with having both - struct cfg80211_rx_assoc_resp - cfg80211_rx_assoc_resp() I think at some point I found there's some kind of ticket open against that, and while I don't hope it will be fixed soon (and we renamed that struct because of it), maybe doing these changes will make it harder to eventually deal with such a thing? johannes