On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:32:07AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > On the other hand, if one finds a valid "struct foo" using normal > fonts, this would mean that either the doc is outdated, mentioning > an struct that were removed/renamed or that there's a missing > kernel-doc markup. > > In any case, the fix is to simply fix the kernel-doc markup for > struct foo. > > I guess in the future automarkup.py could issue a warning in > order to warn about missing cross-references, perhaps when > W=1 or W=2 is used. Well, most structs that fscrypt.rst refers to are defined in include/uapi/linux/fscrypt.h. The whole fscrypt UAPI, including the fields of these structs, is documented in fscrypt.rst. So I didn't really intend the fscrypt UAPI structs to have kerneldoc comments, as people are supposed to refer to the documentation in fscrypt.rst instead. We could have both, but it feels a bit redundant. - Eric
|