Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 15/12/2023 17:28, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >> *sigh* >> >> This adds nearly 600 new warnings. Anybody gonna help fix them? > > I think in the vast majority of the cases the fix will be to just remove > the offending line from the kerneldoc, so it's not particularly > difficult, mostly just overhead from the patch preparation/submission > process. > > I'd be happy to take a stab at it -- I think we could even script most > of it. Respond here, I guess, if anybody else wants to do some so we can > split it up. It's mostly done; I've gotten it down to under 200 and sent patches to make the changes. Randy is working on it too, I know. It's not always just deletion, but the fixes are usually pretty straightforward. > On a related note, it might be useful to have some kind of "status page" > somewhere on the web for the docs where you can see a list of unresolved > documentation warnings in mainline/docs-next/next without having to do a > local build first (as a way to solicit contributions). I suppose, but how do you know you've properly addressed the warning if you don't do a build afterward? I don't see that saving a whole lot of effort, but maybe I'm missing something? Thanks, jon
