On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 11:22:34AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Feb 2020, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 12:17 PM Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > > > + /**
> >> > > > + * @managed:
> >> > > > + *
> >> > > > + * Managed resources linked to the lifetime of this &drm_device as
> >> > > > + * tracked by @ref.
> >> > > > + */
> >> > > > + struct {
> >> > > > + struct list_head resources;
> >> > > > + void *final_kfree;
> >> > > > + spinlock_t lock;
> >> > > > + } managed;
> >> > >
> >> > > I am missing kernel-doc here.
> >> > > At least document that lock is used to guard access to resources.
> >> > > (s/lock/lock_resources/ ?)
> >> >
> >> > Dunno why, but the support for name sub-structures seems to have
> >> > broken in kerneldoc. So I can type it, but it's not showing up, so I
> >> > didn't bother. Well I had it, but deleted it again. It's still
> >> > documented to work, but I have no idea what I'm doing wrong.
> >>
> >> Most readers prefer the .c files as the source.
> >> I personally read the generated kernel doc when I google
> >> and when I check that my own stuff looks good in kernel-doc format.
> >> So comments are still valueable despite not being picked up by
> >> kernel-doc.
> >> You know this - but I just wanted to encourage you to write the few
> >> lines that may help me and others :-)
> >
> > Hm I thought way back this actually worked. Again ping for Jani, he's
> > better on top of what's happening in kernel-doc land.
>
> I haven't really been all that active lately, but I think the syntax
> here would be e.g. "@managed.resources:".
That's the one that doesn't seem to work unfortunately.
Adding kerneldoc people and mailing list, maybe this was intentionally
removed somewhen ... Jon, any pointers?
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
