Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: kernel: cpu: resctrl: Fix kernel-doc in pseudo_lock.c | From | Reinette Chatre <> | Date | Tue, 8 Jun 2021 14:23:26 -0700 |
| |
Hi Fabio,
On 6/8/2021 1:12 PM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 1:30:34 AM CEST Reinette Chatre wrote: >> Hi Fabio, >> > Hi Reinette, >> >> Thank you very much for catching these. I am curious what your goal is >> because when I ran a kernel-doc check on the resctrl area there were >> many more warnings than are not addressed in this patch. Also, while >> this patch claims to fix the kernel-doc in pseudo_lock.c there seems to >> be a few more that are not addressed. >> > Actually this patch was just a preliminary test for checking if my > contributions to this subsystem would be taken into consideration or > completely ignored. That is the real reason why I just started with trying to > fix only a couple of kernel-doc issues in pseudo_lock.c.
Your submissions are appreciated and will be taken into consideration.
>> Are you planning to submit more >> patches to do a cleanup of kernel-doc or are these the only ones >> bothering you for some reason? >> > I'd like to submit more cleanup patches of kernel-doc, because I always read > carefully the kernel-doc above the functions I want to understand. I have a > long term plan to study the Linux code and try to contribute the better I can. > I'm into Linux developing since about two months, so I'm a newcomer and I > still have a lot to learn. >> >> Could you please fixup the subject to conform to this area: >> "x86/resctrl: Fix kernel-doc in pseudo_lock.c" >> > Sure. I was inadvertently using the drivers/staging convention I've used for > the patches I've submitted there.
Unfortunately the kernel is not consistent in this regard. >> For this subject to be accurate though it should fix all the kernel-doc >> warnings found in pseudo_lock.c - or if not it would be helpful to >> explain what the criteria for fixes are. I tested this by running: >> $ scripts/kernel-doc -v -none arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/* >> > I've just run the above script and I see that there are a lot more warnings > that I was expecting. > > I want to fix as much as I can. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure I won't be able > to fix them all, just because the inner working and the purpose of some > functions are a bit obscure to me (at least until I get more knowledge of x86 > architecture - it may take a lot of time because I'm also studying other > subsystems at the same time).
...
> region >>> >>> + * @rdtgrp: resource group to which the pseudo-locked region belongs >>> + * @sel: cache level selector >> >> This is not correct. A more accurate description could be: >> "select which measurement to perform on pseudo-locked region" >> > Here it is an example of my lack of knowledge/experience. Obviously, I'll > rewrite it according to your review. > > To summarize: as soon as possible I'll submit a v2 patch with the kernel-doc > fixes that I think I can understand. I am pretty sure that some fixes will not > be to your standards and that for what regards some others I will not even be > able to attempt to fix them :( >
Thank you for giving me insight into your status and plans. Your approach sounds reasonable to me. When you submit fixes to parts you understand I can provide feedback based on my understandings to collaborate towards improved kernel-doc in this area.
Thank you
Reinette
| |