On 18/03/16 17:46, Luis de Bethencourt wrote: > On 18/03/16 16:49, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 16:35 +0000, Luis de Bethencourt wrote: >>> Fix order of mac80211_rx_flags description to match the enum. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Hi, >>> >>> I want ahead and fixed the order of the descriptions. checkpatch.pl >>> was giving >>> a warning to my previous patch and I had a hunch it was because the >>> wrong order >>> breaks the parser. Indeed it does and with this patch below >>> checkpatch.pl does >>> not complain about this flag descriptions anymore. >>> >> Huh. I think we should fix checkpatch.pl instead. While the current >> order isn't likely really good, I believe kernel-doc will output the >> documentation in the order it's listed, and that can be useful for the >> documentation output to group related things, even if their bits may be >> further apart. >> >> johannes >> > > I agree checkpatch.pl should be fixed. I can look into it. No promises > though, it has been a long time since I look at Perl code. > > I understand the logic of grouping the documentation in logical blocks. > It is unfortunate though that this means the enum and documentation won't > match, which makes reading the code harder. > > In this particular case I don't see the order of the documentation broken > because flags are being grouped. > > Thanks for the review :) > Luis > Sorry Johannes, Update. checkpatch doesn't need fixing and it does see the documentation independently of the order. It was my mistake. Joe Perches pointed it out in this email branch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/18/532 Thanks for looking into this, sorry for my blunder. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
