On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 3:15 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 08:18:01AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:07:12PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 08:03:44PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > - it adds complications for no benefit > > > > It provides a placeholder for collective documentation and clarifies > > scope for the reader. > > Turns out kernel-doc can't deal with a struct variable declaration - it > needs the struct to be named. > > So this doesn't parse: > > static struct { > struct rb_root tree; > spinlock_t lock; > } supinfo; > > but this does: > > static struct supinfo { > struct rb_root tree; > spinlock_t lock; > } supinfo; > > at which point I prefer the separate struct and var declarations as per > the patch. > > Opinions? > Yeah, don't make it a kernel doc. It's a private structure, no need to expose documentation for it in docs. Just use a regular comment - say what it is and why it's here. Bart > Cheers, > Kent. >