On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 06:37:27PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> You can't document function pointer member as functions.
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h:25: warning: Incorrect use of
> kernel-doc format: * process_obj - Process the current object
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h:35: warning: Function parameter or
> member 'process_obj' not described in 'i915_gem_apply_to_region_ops'
>
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h
> index 2dfcc41c0170..8a7650b27cc2 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h
> @@ -22,9 +22,7 @@ struct i915_gem_apply_to_region;
> */
> struct i915_gem_apply_to_region_ops {
> /**
> - * process_obj - Process the current object
> - * @apply: Embed this for private data.
> - * @obj: The current object.
> + * @process_obj: Process the current object
hmm...
looking to the process_obj itself I wonder if we don't have a better way
to document these function pointer arguments that could be acceptable
instead of simply removing them.
+Mauro in case he has some idea.
and the declaration for reference:
int (*process_obj)(struct i915_gem_apply_to_region *apply,
struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj);
> *
> * Note that if this function is part of a ww transaction, and
> * if returns -EDEADLK for one of the objects, it may be
> --
> 2.39.2
>
