> Am 01.07.2017 um 04:09 schrieb Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> DECLARE_HASHTABLE needs similar handling to DECLARE_BITMAP
> because otherwise kernel-doc assumes the member name is the
> second, not first macro parameter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> scripts/kernel-doc | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc
> index a26a5f2dce39..c1ffd31ff423 100755
> --- a/scripts/kernel-doc
> +++ b/scripts/kernel-doc
> @@ -2189,6 +2189,8 @@ sub dump_struct($$) {
> $members =~ s/\s*CRYPTO_MINALIGN_ATTR//gos;
> # replace DECLARE_BITMAP
> $members =~ s/DECLARE_BITMAP\s*\(([^,)]+), ([^,)]+)\)/unsigned long $1\[BITS_TO_LONGS($2)\]/gos;
> + # replace DECLARE_HASHTABLE
> + $members =~ s/DECLARE_HASHTABLE\s*\(([^,)]+), ([^,)]+)\)/unsigned long $1\[1 << (($2) - 1)\]/gos;
>
> create_parameterlist($members, ';', $file);
> check_sections($file, $declaration_name, "struct", $sectcheck, $struct_actual, $nested);
Hi Jakub,
did you have an example for me, where it takes effect? / Thanks!
I run kernel-doc against the whole tree, but I can't find any change
in the generated reST and I have a doubt for what DECLARE_BITMAP is
worth.
-- Markus --
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
