On Mon, 28 May 2012 22:23:51 +0800 Alex Shi <alex....@intel.com> wrote:
> Current few cpumask functions' purposes are not quite clear. Stupid > user like myself need to dig into details for clear function > purpose and return value. > Add few explanation for them is helpful. > It appears that Rusty has applied at least some of this patch to linux-next. Without reading it ;) > --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h > +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h > @@ -271,6 +271,7 @@ static inline void cpumask_clear_cpu(int cpu, struct > cpumask *dstp) > * cpumask_test_cpu - test for a cpu in a cpumask > * @cpu: cpu number (< nr_cpu_ids) > * @cpumask: the cpumask pointer > + * Returns 1 if the 'cpu' is in the old bitmap of 'cpumask', otherwise > returns 0 In kerneldoc we refer to function arguments by prefixing them with a '@', not by surrounding them with single quotes. So this should be * Returns 1 if @cpu is in the old bitmap of @cpumask, otherwise returns 0 And the same applies to the other comments. So can you please grab the latest linux-next, prepare a fixup patch and also check that the patch is complete - not all of your changes have been applied. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/