19/05/2021 18:53, Ferruh Yigit:
> 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?
Yes OK
