Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] sh: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces

Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.kernel.cross-arch,gmane.comp.video.dri.devel,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel,gmane.linux.documentation,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.parisc,gmane.linux.ports.ppc64.devel,gmane.linux.ports.riscv,gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel,gmane.linux.network
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 07:39:20PM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
[ ... ]
> > > 
> > > Hi Guenter,
> > > 
> > > a minor nit from my side: this change results in a Kernel doc warning.
> > > 
> > >       .../bug.h:29: warning: expecting prototype for _EMIT_BUG_ENTRY(). Prototype was for HAVE_BUG_FUNCTION() instead
> > > 
> > > Perhaps either the new code should be placed above the Kernel doc,
> > > or scripts/kernel-doc should be enhanced?
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks a lot for the feedback.
> > 
> > The definition block needs to be inside CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE,
> > so it would be a bit odd to move it above the documentation
> > just to make kerneldoc happy. I am not really sure that to do
> > about it.
> 
> FWIIW, I agree that would be odd.
> But perhaps the #ifdef could also move above the Kernel doc?
> Maybe not a great idea, but the best one I've had so far.
> 

I did that for the next version of the patch series. It is a bit more
clumsy, so I left it as separate patch on top of this patch. I'd
still like to get input from others before making the change final.

Thanks,
Guenter
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.