Hello, I applied the following patch to wq/for-6.10. The offending line wasn't introduced recently tho. It goes way back. 5797b1c18919 just touches the surrounding lines. Maybe that triggered something? Thanks. ------ 8< ------ >From 51da7f68edae38e81543d57fd71811f7481c0472 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 10:03:13 -1000 Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: Use "@..." in function comment to describe variable length argument Previously, it was using "remaining args" without leading "@" which isn't valid. Let's follow snprintf()'s example and use "@...". Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- include/linux/workqueue.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/include/linux/workqueue.h b/include/linux/workqueue.h index 2df1188c0f96..fb3993894536 100644 --- a/include/linux/workqueue.h +++ b/include/linux/workqueue.h @@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ void workqueue_softirq_dead(unsigned int cpu); * @fmt: printf format for the name of the workqueue * @flags: WQ_* flags * @max_active: max in-flight work items, 0 for default - * remaining args: args for @fmt + * @...: args for @fmt * * For a per-cpu workqueue, @max_active limits the number of in-flight work * items for each CPU. e.g. @max_active of 1 indicates that each CPU can be -- 2.44.0
