On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 10:41:02 +0200 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 06:57:46PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This is to avoid tripping up kernel-doc which filters it out before > > but not after the name. > > > > Fixes: > > ./include/linux/iio/iio.h:628: warning: Function parameter or struct member '__private' not described in 'iio_dev' > > ./include/linux/iio/iio.h:628: warning: Excess struct member 'priv' description in 'iio_dev' > > ... > > > - void *priv __private; > > + void __private *priv; > > }; > > This is still inconsistent from the position perspective (while may still > work). I specifically placed it there, otherwise what you need is to have > > void * __private priv; > > to be fully consistent. > > That said, either you need to carefully reindent all the affected members, > or fix the kernel-doc, or both. Doh. Indeed. The marking was wrong and sparse tripped on it. I'll switch to void * __private priv; hideous though that is and not worry about indenting. We can then decide next cycle whether to tidy up better. >
