Re: [PATCH] ata: libata: avoid kernel-doc warnings
Damien Le Moal <[email protected]> Sun, 26 Jul 2026 13:14:59 +0900
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-ide,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Organization | Western Digital Research |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 7/26/26 12:41, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > On 7/25/26 7:49 PM, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> On 7/25/26 10:52, Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> Modify comments to prevent kernel-doc warnings: >>> - use "/*" for a non-kernel-doc comment >>> - add a Returns: section for ata_id_major_version() >>> >>> Warning: include/linux/ata.h:770 Cannot find identifier on line: >>> * >>> Warning: include/linux/ata.h:782 function parameter 'id' not described in 'ata_id_sct_data_tables' >>> Warning: include/linux/ata.h:782 expecting prototype for Word(). Prototype was for ata_id_sct_data_tables() instead >>> Warning: include/linux/ata.h:820 No description found for return value of 'ata_id_major_version' >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> Cc: Damien Le Moal <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Niklas Cassel <[email protected]> >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> >>> include/linux/ata.h | 5 +++-- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> --- linux-next-20260722.orig/include/linux/ata.h >>> +++ linux-next-20260722/include/linux/ata.h >>> @@ -767,8 +767,7 @@ static inline bool ata_id_sense_reportin >>> return id[ATA_ID_COMMAND_SET_4] & BIT(6); >>> } >>> >>> -/** >>> - * >>> +/* >>> * Word: 206 - SCT Command Transport >>> * 15:12 - Vendor Specific >>> * 11:6 - Reserved >>> @@ -815,6 +814,8 @@ static inline bool ata_id_sct_supported( >>> * >>> * The practical impact of this is that ata_id_major_version cannot >>> * reliably report on drives below ATA3. >>> + * >>> + * Returns: major version of ATA drive level or %0 if unknown >> >> Is the "%0% here intentional ? If yes, why ? Or is it a typo? If it is the >> latter, I can fix when applying. > > It indicates to kernel-doc that it's a constant and should be printed > in code/monospace style. > But it's perfectly OK to drop it if you prefer that. Well, given that the patch is all about *not* having that comment as a kernel doc, I would prefer staying consistent with this goals and not use kernel docs markings. I will remove it if you agree. Thanks! -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research