Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 5 Oct 2019 06:33:30 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Jonathan =?iso-8859-1?Q?Neusch=E4fer?= <j.neuschaefer@gmx.net>
Cc:     rcu@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rculist: Describe variadic macro argument in a
 Sphinx-compatible way
Message-ID: <20191005133330.GX2689@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20191004215402.28008-1-j.neuschaefer@gmx.net>
 <20191004222439.GR2689@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20191004232328.GC19803@latitude>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20191004232328.GC19803@latitude>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 01:23:28AM +0200, Jonathan Neusch?fer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:24:39PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:54:02PM +0200, Jonathan Neusch?fer wrote:
> > > Without this patch, Sphinx shows "variable arguments" as the description
> > > of the cond argument, rather than the intended description, and prints
> > > the following warnings:
> > > 
> > > ./include/linux/rculist.h:374: warning: Excess function parameter 'cond' description in 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > > ./include/linux/rculist.h:651: warning: Excess function parameter 'cond' description in 'hlist_for_each_entry_rcu'
> 
> Hmm, small detail that I didn't realize before: It's actually the
> kernel-doc script, not Sphinx, that can't deal with variadic macro
> arguments and thus requires this patch.
> 
> So it may also be possible to fix the script instead. (I have not
> looked into how much work that would be.)

OK, thank you for letting me know.  I will keep your patch for the
moment, but please let me know if the fix can be elsewhere.

							Thanx, Paul