On Wed, 07 Sep 2016, Markus Heiser wrote:
> Am 06.09.2016 um 15:36 schrieb Jonathan Corbet :
>
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:43:18 +0300
>> Jani Nikula wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
As far as I can tell, the handling of "..." arguments has never worked
right, s
Am 06.09.2016 um 15:36 schrieb Jonathan Corbet :
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:43:18 +0300
> Jani Nikula wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>>> As far as I can tell, the handling of "..." arguments has never worked
>>> right, so any documentation provided was ignored in favor o
On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:43:18 +0300
Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, the handling of "..." arguments has never worked
> > right, so any documentation provided was ignored in favor of "variable
> > arguments." This makes kernel-doc handle
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the handling of "..." arguments has never worked
> right, so any documentation provided was ignored in favor of "variable
> arguments." This makes kernel-doc handle "@...:" as documented. It does
> *not* fix spots in kerneldoc c
Hi Jonathan,
[auto build test WARNING on linus/master]
[also build test WARNING on v4.8-rc3 next-20160825]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
[Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for
convenience) to reco
As far as I can tell, the handling of "..." arguments has never worked
right, so any documentation provided was ignored in favor of "variable
arguments." This makes kernel-doc handle "@...:" as documented. It does
*not* fix spots in kerneldoc comments that don't follow that convention,
but they a
