On 12/21/23 07:20, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > 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. > I'm still seeing lots of Excess warnings from include/crypto/hash.h include/crypto/skcipher.h drivers/gpu/drm/* (several files there have warnings) I would be happy to see Vegard's help on this - unless Jon has already addressed those warnings. >> 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. -- #Randy https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette https://subspace.kernel.org/etiquette.html
