Fixed sparse warnings about the descriptions of some function
parameters.
Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c
index f6451abddb09..c3629db90570 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c
@@ -520,7 +520,7 @@ static int pseudo_lock_fn(void *_rdtgrp)
/**
* rdtgroup_monitor_in_progress - Test if monitoring in progress
- * @r: resource group being queried
+ * @rdtgrp: resource group being queried
*
* Return: 1 if monitor groups have been created for this resource
* group, 0 otherwise.
@@ -1140,6 +1140,8 @@ static int measure_l3_residency(void *_plr)
/**
* pseudo_lock_measure_cycles - Trigger latency measure to pseudo-locked region
+ * @rdtgrp: resource group to which the pseudo-locked region belongs
+ * @sel: cache level selector
*
* The measurement of latency to access a pseudo-locked region should be
* done from a cpu that is associated with that pseudo-locked region.
--
2.31.1
Hi Fabio,
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. 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?
Could you please fixup the subject to conform to this area:
"x86/resctrl: Fix kernel-doc in pseudo_lock.c"
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/*
On 6/2/2021 3:23 PM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> Fixed sparse warnings about the descriptions of some function
> parameters.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c
> index f6451abddb09..c3629db90570 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c
> @@ -520,7 +520,7 @@ static int pseudo_lock_fn(void *_rdtgrp)
>
> /**
> * rdtgroup_monitor_in_progress - Test if monitoring in progress
> - * @r: resource group being queried
> + * @rdtgrp: resource group being queried
> *
> * Return: 1 if monitor groups have been created for this resource
> * group, 0 otherwise.
> @@ -1140,6 +1140,8 @@ static int measure_l3_residency(void *_plr)
>
> /**
> * pseudo_lock_measure_cycles - Trigger latency measure to pseudo-locked 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"
> *
> * The measurement of latency to access a pseudo-locked region should be
> * done from a cpu that is associated with that pseudo-locked region.
>
Reinette
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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
> On 6/2/2021 3:23 PM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > Fixed sparse warnings about the descriptions of some function
> > parameters.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c
> > b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c index
f6451abddb09..c3629db90570 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c
> > @@ -520,7 +520,7 @@ static int pseudo_lock_fn(void *_rdtgrp)
> >
> > /**
> >
> > * rdtgroup_monitor_in_progress - Test if monitoring in progress
> >
> > - * @r: resource group being queried
> > + * @rdtgrp: resource group being queried
> >
> > *
> > * Return: 1 if monitor groups have been created for this resource
> > * group, 0 otherwise.
> >
> > @@ -1140,6 +1140,8 @@ static int measure_l3_residency(void *_plr)
> >
> > /**
> >
> > * pseudo_lock_measure_cycles - Trigger latency measure to pseudo-locked
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 :(
Thanks you very much for your kind reply,
Fabio
>
> > *
> > * The measurement of latency to access a pseudo-locked region should be
> > * done from a cpu that is associated with that pseudo-locked region.
>
> Reinette
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