On 8/19/20 2:25 AM, [email protected] wrote: > On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 05:02:00PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> --- lnx-59-rc1.orig/include/linux/seqlock.h >> +++ lnx-59-rc1/include/linux/seqlock.h > >> @@ -173,7 +173,6 @@ seqcount_##lockname##_init(seqcount_##lo >> seqcount_init(&s->seqcount); \ >> __SEQ_LOCK(s->lock = lock); \ >> } \ >> - \ >> static __always_inline seqcount_t * \ >> __seqcount_##lockname##_ptr(seqcount_##lockname##_t *s) >> \ >> { \ > > I think I'd rather like that empty line there.. > >> @@ -218,9 +217,9 @@ SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE(struct mutex, mutex, >> SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE(struct ww_mutex, ww_mutex, true, &s->lock->base) >> >> /** >> - * SEQCNT_LOCKNAME_ZERO - static initializer for seqcount_LOCKNAME_t >> - * @name: Name of the seqcount_LOCKNAME_t instance >> - * @lock: Pointer to the associated LOCKTYPE >> + * SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE_ZERO - static initializer for seqcount_LOCKNAME_t >> + * @seq_name: Name of the seqcount_LOCKNAME_t instance >> + * @assoc_lock: Pointer to the associated LOCKTYPE >> */ >> >> #define SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE_ZERO(seq_name, assoc_lock) { >> \ > > And this hunk seems wrong, SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE_ZERO() is not the intended > API, SEQCNT_*_ZERO() are. > > > I've edited the patch like below, is that OK with you?
Hi Peter, Yes, this looks good. Thanks for your help. > --- > Subject: seqlock: Fix multiple kernel-doc warnings > From: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> > Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 17:02:00 -0700 > > From: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> > > Fix kernel-doc warnings in <linux/seqlock.h>. > > ../include/linux/seqlock.h:152: warning: Incorrect use of kernel-doc format: > * seqcount_LOCKNAME_init() - runtime initializer for seqcount_LOCKNAME_t > ../include/linux/seqlock.h:164: warning: Incorrect use of kernel-doc format: > * SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE() - Instantiate seqcount_LOCKNAME_t and helpers > ../include/linux/seqlock.h:229: warning: Function parameter or member > 'seq_name' not described in 'SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE_ZERO' > ../include/linux/seqlock.h:229: warning: Function parameter or member > 'assoc_lock' not described in 'SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE_ZERO' > ../include/linux/seqlock.h:229: warning: Excess function parameter 'name' > description in 'SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE_ZERO' > ../include/linux/seqlock.h:229: warning: Excess function parameter 'lock' > description in 'SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE_ZERO' > ../include/linux/seqlock.h:695: warning: duplicate section name 'NOTE' > > Demote kernel-doc notation for the macros "seqcount_LOCKNAME_init()" and > "SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE()"; scripts/kernel-doc does not handle them correctly. > > Rename function parameters in SEQCNT_LOCKNAME_ZERO() documentation > to match the macro's argument names. Change the macro name in the > documentation to SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE_ZERO() to match the macro's name. > > For raw_write_seqcount_latch(), rename the second NOTE: to NOTE2: > to prevent a kernel-doc warning. However, the generated output is not > quite as nice as it could be for this. > > Fix a typo: s/LOCKTYPR/LOCKTYPE/ > > Fixes: 0efc94c5d15c ("seqcount: Compress SEQCNT_LOCKNAME_ZERO()") > Fixes: e4e9ab3f9f91 ("seqlock: Fold seqcount_LOCKNAME_init() definition") > Fixes: a8772dccb2ec ("seqlock: Fold seqcount_LOCKNAME_t definition") > Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] > --- > v2: do not move the definition of seqcount_LOCKNAME_init(). > Fix build errors reported by kernel test robot. > Actually build a kernel with these changes. > > include/linux/seqlock.h | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > --- a/include/linux/seqlock.h > +++ b/include/linux/seqlock.h > @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ static inline void seqcount_lockdep_read > #endif > > /** > - * typedef seqcount_LOCKNAME_t - sequence counter with LOCKTYPR associated > + * typedef seqcount_LOCKNAME_t - sequence counter with LOCKTYPE associated > * @seqcount: The real sequence counter > * @lock: Pointer to the associated spinlock > * > @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ static inline void seqcount_lockdep_read > * that the write side critical section is properly serialized. > */ > > -/** > +/* > * seqcount_LOCKNAME_init() - runtime initializer for seqcount_LOCKNAME_t > * @s: Pointer to the seqcount_LOCKNAME_t instance > * @lock: Pointer to the associated LOCKTYPE > @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE(rwlock_t, rwlock, > fa > SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE(struct mutex, mutex, true, s->lock) > SEQCOUNT_LOCKTYPE(struct ww_mutex, ww_mutex, true, &s->lock->base) > > -/** > +/* > * SEQCNT_LOCKNAME_ZERO - static initializer for seqcount_LOCKNAME_t > * @name: Name of the seqcount_LOCKNAME_t instance > * @lock: Pointer to the associated LOCKTYPE > @@ -688,7 +688,7 @@ static inline int raw_read_seqcount_t_la > * to miss an entire modification sequence, once it resumes it might > * observe the new entry. > * > - * NOTE: > + * NOTE2: > * > * When data is a dynamic data structure; one should use regular RCU > * patterns to manage the lifetimes of the objects within. > -- ~Randy Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
