2020-08-16 23:46:11

by Randy Dunlap

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH v2] block: blk-mq.c: fix @at_head kernel-doc warning

Fix a new kernel-doc warning in block/blk-mq.c:

../block/blk-mq.c:1844: warning: Function parameter or member 'at_head' not described in 'blk_mq_request_bypass_insert'

Fixes: 01e99aeca397 ("blk-mq: insert passthrough request into hctx->dispatch directly")
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
Cc: AndrĂ© Almeida <[email protected]>
Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: Ming Lei <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
---
v2: correct Fixes: Commit-ID + Cc: to author.

block/blk-mq.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

--- lnx-59-rc1.orig/block/blk-mq.c
+++ lnx-59-rc1/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -1834,6 +1834,7 @@ void __blk_mq_insert_request(struct blk_
/**
* blk_mq_request_bypass_insert - Insert a request at dispatch list.
* @rq: Pointer to request to be inserted.
+ * @at_head: true if the request should be inserted at the head of the list.
* @run_queue: If we should run the hardware queue after inserting the request.
*
* Should only be used carefully, when the caller knows we want to


2020-08-16 23:54:37

by Jens Axboe

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: blk-mq.c: fix @at_head kernel-doc warning

On 8/16/20 4:39 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Fix a new kernel-doc warning in block/blk-mq.c:
>
> ../block/blk-mq.c:1844: warning: Function parameter or member 'at_head' not described in 'blk_mq_request_bypass_insert'

Replaced the previous one - and since I was doing that anyway, I removed
the 'new' from the commit message. Looks like it was from 5.6, so not
what I'd call new.

--
Jens Axboe

2020-08-16 23:57:41

by Randy Dunlap

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: blk-mq.c: fix @at_head kernel-doc warning

On 8/16/20 4:50 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 8/16/20 4:39 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> Fix a new kernel-doc warning in block/blk-mq.c:
>>
>> ../block/blk-mq.c:1844: warning: Function parameter or member 'at_head' not described in 'blk_mq_request_bypass_insert'
>
> Replaced the previous one - and since I was doing that anyway, I removed
> the 'new' from the commit message. Looks like it was from 5.6, so not
> what I'd call new.

Yes, I just hadn't seen it before and I check pretty carefully.

thanks.
--
~Randy