On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 19-03-2013 15:22, Nishanth Menon wrote: >> >> On 10:54-20130319, Eduardo Valentin wrote: [..] >> You may still want to fix warnings generated by: >> ./scripts/kernel-doc -v >> drivers/staging/ti-soc-thermal/ti-bandgap.c>/dev/null >> For example - the following changes are required for proper error return >> documentation (following diff is just an hint): > > > Although I think the above is a good thing to be done, I don't think it is > considered mandatory, and for this reason, I don't believe the above should > block this patch. Basically because, after this patch, at least kernel-doc > runs successfully. > > Besides, there is very few evidence that ppl out there care much about "-v". > A quick grep+awk would inform you this. If you consider the population of C > files (around 35.4K files) inside the tree (simple find * | grep .*\\.[c,h]$ > in your tree), only around 12.0% has structured comments. Out of the files > that have structured comments, only about 11.0% has 0 warnings (including 0 > warnings with -v), that's something like ~500 files. A considerable amount > don't care about "-v" (34% out of the files with structured comments). > Actually most of them don't care about warnings (89% out of the files with > structured comments) at all. :-) Yep, commit 4092bac7 > > That said, I am going to send a separate patch to fix the "-v" later on. > Including your chunks below. Thanks. Regards, Nishanth Menon _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
