Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-1294-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
 <mchehab@s-opensource.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/kernel-doc: restore warning for Excess
 struct/union
In-Reply-To: <20231214070200.24405-1-rdunlap@infradead.org>
References: <20231214070200.24405-1-rdunlap@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:28:56 -0700
Message-ID: <875y0zqvjr.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> writes:

> The warning for Excess struct or union member description was
> removed when the $nested parameter of check_sections() was removed.
> This causes some kernel-doc notation warnings to be missed.
>
> Recently the kernel test robot somehow reported an Excess member. The
> code in kernel-doc has not issued that warning since kernel v4.16, so I
> don't know how the robot did it. (See the Link for the report.)
>
>   drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/fw/dbg.c:86: warning: Excess struct/union/enum/typedef member 'trans_len' description in 'iwl_fw_dump_ptrs'
>
> I patched that warning away even though I could not reproduce the
> warning from kernel-doc. The warning should be issued for extraneous
> struct member or union member description, so restore it.
>
> Fixes: 1081de2d2f91 ("scripts: kernel-doc: get rid of $nested parameter")
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202312060810.QT9zourt-lkp@intel.com/
> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>  scripts/kernel-doc |    7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

*sigh*

This adds nearly 600 new warnings.  Anybody gonna help fix them?

Of course, most of them are duplicates.  Someday it would be really nice
if we could find a way to only emit each warning once.

Anyway, I've applied it.

Thanks,

jon