On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 06:33:34PM +0100, Markus Heiser wrote:
>
> Am 07.02.19 um 17:18 schrieb Mike Rapoport:
> >>>Does checkpatch checks the kernel-doc parts at all?
> >>No. I guess there are to many places to fail / to hard to put someone in
> >>charge. E.g. if you do include a single kernel-
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 18:58 +0100, Markus Heiser wrote:
>> Am 07.02.19 um 18:50 schrieb Joe Perches:
>> > On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 09:34 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 09:31:20AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > > > It's not clear t
On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 18:58 +0100, Markus Heiser wrote:
> Am 07.02.19 um 18:50 schrieb Joe Perches:
> > On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 09:34 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 09:31:20AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > It's not clear to me what you are asking checkpatch to do here.
Am 07.02.19 um 18:58 schrieb Markus Heiser:
BTW: kernel-doc parser accept 'return' and 'returns':
} elsif ($newsection =~ m/^return?$/i) {
$newsection = $section_return;
Sorry wrong C&P, here is the one from the source:
} elsif ($newsection =~ m/^returns?$/i) {
Am 07.02.19 um 18:50 schrieb Joe Perches:
On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 09:34 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 09:31:20AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
It's not clear to me what you are asking checkpatch to do here.
It may be reasonable for checkpatch to invoke kernel-doc on some
por
On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 09:34 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 09:31:20AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > It's not clear to me what you are asking checkpatch to do here.
> >
> > It may be reasonable for checkpatch to invoke kernel-doc on some
> > portion of a patch, but I'm not s
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 09:31:20AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> It's not clear to me what you are asking checkpatch to do here.
>
> It may be reasonable for checkpatch to invoke kernel-doc on some
> portion of a patch, but I'm not sure how valuable it will be.
I was just hoping to match:
* Retur
Am 07.02.19 um 17:18 schrieb Mike Rapoport:
Does checkpatch checks the kernel-doc parts at all?
No. I guess there are to many places to fail / to hard to put someone in
charge. E.g. if you do include a single kernel-doc comment from a source all
kernel-docs in the source will be parsed and m
On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 18:18 +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Hi Markus,
>
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 04:58:17PM +0100, Markus Heiser wrote:
> > Am 07.02.19 um 16:30 schrieb Mike Rapoport:
> > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 05:59:24AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > This seems to be an extremely common
Hi Markus,
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 04:58:17PM +0100, Markus Heiser wrote:
> Am 07.02.19 um 16:30 schrieb Mike Rapoport:
> >On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 05:59:24AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >>
> >>This seems to be an extremely common mistake to make (indeed, almost
> >>3000 occurrences of 'Returns:
Am 07.02.19 um 16:30 schrieb Mike Rapoport:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 05:59:24AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
This seems to be an extremely common mistake to make (indeed, almost
3000 occurrences of 'Returns:' vs 5300 occurrences of 'Return:').
Add to that ~1000 '@return:'.
But scripts/kerne
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 05:59:24AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> This seems to be an extremely common mistake to make (indeed, almost
> 3000 occurrences of 'Returns:' vs 5300 occurrences of 'Return:').
Add to that ~1000 '@return:'.
But scripts/kernel-doc does not really care:
} els
This seems to be an extremely common mistake to make (indeed, almost
3000 occurrences of 'Returns:' vs 5300 occurrences of 'Return:'). Could
we have a checkpatch warning for it?
- Forwarded message from Matthew Wilcox -
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 04:59:27PM +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
13 matches
Mail list logo
