On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:36:19PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 08:22:02AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > After changeset 5130b8fd0690 ("rcu: Introduce kfree_rcu() single-argument macro"),
> > kernel-doc now emits two warnings:
> >
> > ./include/linux/rcupdate.h:884: warning: Excess function parameter 'ptr' description in 'kfree_rcu'
> > ./include/linux/rcupdate.h:884: warning: Excess function parameter 'rhf' description in 'kfree_rcu'
> >
> > What's happening here is that some macro magic was added in order
> > to call two different versions of kfree_rcu(), being the first one
> > with just one argument and a second one with two arguments.
> >
> > That makes harder to document the kfree_rcu() arguments, which
> > also reflects on the documentation text.
> >
> > In order to make clearer that this macro accepts optional
> > arguments, by using macro concatenation, changing its
> > definition from:
> > #define kfree_rcu kvfree_rcu
> >
> > to:
> > #define kfree_rcu(ptr, rhf...) kvfree_rcu(ptr, ## rhf)
> >
> > That not only helps kernel-doc to understand the macro arguemnts,
> > but also provides a better C definition that makes clearer that
> > the first argument is mandatory and the second one is optional.
> >
> > Fixes: 5130b8fd0690 ("rcu: Introduce kfree_rcu() single-argument macro")
> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/rcupdate.h | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > index bd04f722714f..5cc6deaa5df2 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > @@ -881,7 +881,7 @@ static inline notrace void rcu_read_unlock_sched_notrace(void)
> > * The BUILD_BUG_ON check must not involve any function calls, hence the
> > * checks are done in macros here.
> > */
> > -#define kfree_rcu kvfree_rcu
> > +#define kfree_rcu(ptr, rhf...) kvfree_rcu(ptr, ## rhf)
> >
> > /**
> > * kvfree_rcu() - kvfree an object after a grace period.
> > --
> > 2.29.2
> >
> I think it is fair enough. I checked the "kernel-doc" and after this
> change it does not detect any violations which are in question.
>
> Tested-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx>
Queued, thank you both!
Thanx, Paul
