On 5/19/2021 5:27 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> The Doxygen comments are placed before the related lines,
> but the markers were /**< instead of /**
>
> Fixes: b10a421a1f3b ("ethdev: add packet integrity check flow rules")
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> ---
> lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h | 18 +++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> index 94c8c1ccc8..d7e0082dc7 100644
> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> @@ -1708,7 +1708,7 @@ rte_flow_item_geneve_opt_mask = {
> #endif
>
> struct rte_flow_item_integrity {
> - /**< Tunnel encapsulation level the item should apply to.
> + /** Tunnel encapsulation level the item should apply to.
> * @see rte_flow_action_rss
> */
> uint32_t level;
> @@ -1716,21 +1716,21 @@ struct rte_flow_item_integrity {
> union {
> __extension__
> struct {
> - /**< The packet is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> + /** The packet is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> uint64_t packet_ok:1;
> - /**< L2 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> + /** L2 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> uint64_t l2_ok:1;
> - /**< L3 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> + /** L3 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> uint64_t l3_ok:1;
> - /**< L4 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> + /** L4 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> uint64_t l4_ok:1;
> - /**< L2 layer CRC is valid. */
> + /** L2 layer CRC is valid. */
> uint64_t l2_crc_ok:1;
> - /**< IPv4 layer checksum is valid. */
> + /** IPv4 layer checksum is valid. */
> uint64_t ipv4_csum_ok:1;
> - /**< L4 layer checksum is valid. */
> + /** L4 layer checksum is valid. */
> uint64_t l4_csum_ok:1;
> - /**< The l3 length is smaller than the frame length. */
> + /** L3 length is smaller than frame length. */
> uint64_t l3_len_ok:1;
> uint64_t reserved:56;
> };
>
+1 to fix but the struct is not listed at all in the API documentation, because
it is missing Doxygen comment for the struct itself.
Can it be possible to add a doxygen comment for the struct, even it is very
basic, to enable it to be documented?
