On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 13/02/18 01:52, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> @@ -738,14 +1031,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(devm_gen_pool_create); >>> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_OF >>> /** >>> - * of_gen_pool_get - find a pool by phandle property >>> + * of_gen_pool_get() - find a pool by phandle property >>> * @np: device node >>> * @propname: property name containing phandle(s) >>> * @index: index into the phandle array >>> * >>> - * Returns the pool that contains the chunk starting at the physical >>> - * address of the device tree node pointed at by the phandle property, >>> - * or NULL if not found. >>> + * Return: >>> + * * pool address - it contains the chunk starting at the physical >>> + * address of the device tree node pointed at by >>> + * the phandle property >>> + * * NULL - otherwise >>> */ >>> struct gen_pool *of_gen_pool_get(struct device_node *np, >>> const char *propname, int index) >> >> I wonder if this might be more readable by splitting the kernel-doc >> changes from the bitmap changes? I.e. fix all the kernel-doc in one >> patch, and in the following, make the bitmap changes. Maybe it's such >> a small part that it doesn't matter, though? > > I had the same thought, but then I would have made most of the kerneldoc > changes to something that would be altered by the following patch, > because it would have made little sense to fix only those parts that > would have survived. > > If it is really a problem to keep them together, I could put these > changes in a following patch. Would that be ok? Hmmm... I think keeping it as-is would be better than a trailing docs-only patch. Maybe Jon has an opinion? -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
