> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 8:54 AM
> To: Loktionov, Aleksandr <[email protected]>
> Cc: Kitszel, Przemyslaw <[email protected]>; Nguyen, Anthony L
> <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Andrew Lunn <[email protected]>; linux-
> [email protected]; David S. Miller <[email protected]>; Eric Dumazet
> <[email protected]>; Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>; Paolo Abeni
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net v1 1/1] idpf: Fix kernel-doc descriptions to avoid
> warnings
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 07:24:40AM +0000, Loktionov, Aleksandr wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kitszel, Przemyslaw <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 7:30 AM On 11/24/25 18:42, Andy
> > > Shevchenko wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > /**
> > > > - * idpf_tx_splitq_has_room - check if enough Tx splitq resources
> > > > are available
> > > > + * idpf_txq_has_room - check if enough Tx splitq resources are
> > > > + available
> > > > * @tx_q: the queue to be checked
> > > > * @descs_needed: number of descriptors required for this packet
> > > > * @bufs_needed: number of Tx buffers required for this packet
> > > > @@
>
> > > > unsigned int idpf_tx_res_count_required(struct idpf_tx_queue *txq,
>
> > > > * idpf_tx_splitq_bump_ntu - adjust NTU and generation
> > > > * @txq: the tx ring to wrap
> > > > * @ntu: ring index to bump
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Return: the next ring index hopping to 0 when wraps around
> > > > */
> > > > static unsigned int idpf_tx_splitq_bump_ntu(struct idpf_tx_queue
> > > > *txq, u16 ntu)
> > Strange idpf_tx_splitq_bump_ntu() is not idpf_txq_has_room Can you
> > doublecheck?
>
> I didn't get. What do you mean? Please elaborate.
>
In the kdoc I see function was renamed: idpf_tx_splitq_has_room ->
idpf_txq_has_room
But I don't see idpf_txq_has_room() function name in the patch.
Only idpf_tx_splitq_build_flow_desc() before and idpf_tx_res_count_required()
after.
Could it be a mistake?
Everything else looks good for me.
Reviewed-by: Aleksandr Loktionov <[email protected]>
> > @@ -2396,7 +2399,7 @@ void idpf_tx_splitq_build_flow_desc(union
> idpf_tx_flex_desc *desc,
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > - * idpf_tx_splitq_has_room - check if enough Tx splitq resources are
> > available
> > + * idpf_txq_has_room - check if enough Tx splitq resources are
> > + available
> > * @tx_q: the queue to be checked
> > * @descs_needed: number of descriptors required for this packet
> > * @bufs_needed: number of Tx buffers required for this packet @@
> > -2527,6 +2530,8 @@ unsigned int idpf_tx_res_count_required(struct
> idpf_tx_queue *txq,
> > * idpf_tx_splitq_bump_ntu - adjust NTU and generation
> > * @txq: the tx ring to wrap
> > * @ntu: ring index to bump
> > + *
> > + * Return: the next ring index hopping to 0 when wraps around
> > */
> > static unsigned int idpf_tx_splitq_bump_ntu(struct idpf_tx_queue *txq,
> u16 ntu)
> > {
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
