Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 23 Oct 2020 21:39:07 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 49/56] refcount.h: fix a kernel-doc markup
Message-ID: <20201023193907.GI2974@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <cover.1603469755.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
 <fd94a95cfe01b97190b6ffb9e942cb4bbeeaa6bf.1603469755.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
 <202010231039.DE05B63@keescook>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202010231039.DE05B63@keescook>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 10:40:09AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 06:33:36PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > The documented typedef just after the kernel-doc markup
> > is named "refcount_struct".
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/refcount.h | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/refcount.h b/include/linux/refcount.h
> > index 497990c69b0b..8f431b0e69e4 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/refcount.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/refcount.h
> > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@
> >  struct mutex;
> >  
> >  /**
> > - * struct refcount_t - variant of atomic_t specialized for reference counts
> > + * struct refcount_struct - variant of atomic_t specialized for reference counts
> 
> Hm, this is a weird one. Yes, it's actually "struct refcount_struct",
> but the usage should be refcount_t (through the typedef). I'm not sure
> what the right way to document this is.

Yeah, this is wrong. If this is due to a kernel doc warning, the kernel
doc machinery is wrong *again*.