On Sat, 1 Jul 2017 12:11:03 -0700
Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > That was my question as well...as Andrew would ask: what are the
> > user-visible effects of this problem?
>
> The commit which made me write the patch is sitting in Dave Miller's
> net-next tree:
>
> 43f84b72c50d ("nfp: add metadata
On Sat, 1 Jul 2017 10:26:50 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2017 17:42:46 +0200
> Markus Heiser wrote:
>
> > did you have an example for me, where it takes effect? / Thanks!
> >
> > I run kernel-doc against the whole tree, but I can't find any change
> > in the generated reST and I
On Sat, 1 Jul 2017 17:42:46 +0200
Markus Heiser wrote:
> did you have an example for me, where it takes effect? / Thanks!
>
> I run kernel-doc against the whole tree, but I can't find any change
> in the generated reST and I have a doubt for what DECLARE_BITMAP is
> worth.
That was my question
> Am 01.07.2017 um 04:09 schrieb Jakub Kicinski :
>
> DECLARE_HASHTABLE needs similar handling to DECLARE_BITMAP
> because otherwise kernel-doc assumes the member name is the
> second, not first macro parameter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski
> ---
> scripts/kernel-doc | 2 ++
> 1 file change
