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;
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Documentation List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: anonymous enums in kernel doc
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VfpnGEZcnrQLFYaFQ-HuxTmPw5OnewKmRGfXQf__ztjww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHp75VfpnGEZcnrQLFYaFQ-HuxTmPw5OnewKmRGfXQf__ztjww@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Feb 2021 09:51:23 -0700
Message-ID: <87r1lgx8fo.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> writes:

> Mauro, can you do some test cases in your workflow against anonymous
> enum in ernel doc, please?
>
> They are broken again, please fix the script!
>
> drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c:204: warning: wrong kernel-doc
> identifier on line:
> * enum - Locking variants of the pad configuration
>
> Above is simply a wrong statement.

The real problem, perhaps, is that there seems to be little point in
adding kerneldoc comments for anonymous enums; where are you going to
use that documentation?  The error message could perhaps be changed to
say that; meanwhile, perhaps this one could be fixed with an action like
s%/**%/*% ?

Thanks,

jon