On Wed, 03 May 2023, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 06:37:27PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> You can't document function pointer member as functions.
>>
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h:25: warning: Incorrect use of kernel-doc format: * process_obj - Process the current object
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h:35: warning: Function parameter or member 'process_obj' not described in 'i915_gem_apply_to_region_ops'
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h | 4 +---
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h
>> index 2dfcc41c0170..8a7650b27cc2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h
>> @@ -22,9 +22,7 @@ struct i915_gem_apply_to_region;
>> */
>> struct i915_gem_apply_to_region_ops {
>> /**
>> - * process_obj - Process the current object
>> - * @apply: Embed this for private data.
>> - * @obj: The current object.
>> + * @process_obj: Process the current object
>
> hmm...
> looking to the process_obj itself I wonder if we don't have a better way
> to document these function pointer arguments that could be acceptable
> instead of simply removing them.
The alternative is pretty much to document the parameters in plain text
or some mild rst formatting that's not specifically kernel-doc parameter
documentation.
BR,
Jani.
>
> +Mauro in case he has some idea.
>
> and the declaration for reference:
>
> int (*process_obj)(struct i915_gem_apply_to_region *apply,
> struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj);
>
>> *
>> * Note that if this function is part of a ww transaction, and
>> * if returns -EDEADLK for one of the objects, it may be
>> --
>> 2.39.2
>>
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
