On Wed, 03 May 2023, Rodrigo Vivi <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 06:37:27PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> You can't document function pointer member as functions. >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h:25: warning: Incorrect use of >> kernel-doc format: * process_obj - Process the current object >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h:35: warning: Function parameter >> or member 'process_obj' not described in 'i915_gem_apply_to_region_ops' >> >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h | 4 +--- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h >> index 2dfcc41c0170..8a7650b27cc2 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_region.h >> @@ -22,9 +22,7 @@ struct i915_gem_apply_to_region; >> */ >> struct i915_gem_apply_to_region_ops { >> /** >> - * process_obj - Process the current object >> - * @apply: Embed this for private data. >> - * @obj: The current object. >> + * @process_obj: Process the current object > > hmm... > looking to the process_obj itself I wonder if we don't have a better way > to document these function pointer arguments that could be acceptable > instead of simply removing them.
The alternative is pretty much to document the parameters in plain text or some mild rst formatting that's not specifically kernel-doc parameter documentation. BR, Jani. > > +Mauro in case he has some idea. > > and the declaration for reference: > > int (*process_obj)(struct i915_gem_apply_to_region *apply, > struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj); > >> * >> * Note that if this function is part of a ww transaction, and >> * if returns -EDEADLK for one of the objects, it may be >> -- >> 2.39.2 >> -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
