Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-15991-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, Thomas Gleixner
 <tglx@linutronix.de>, x86@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel-doc: handle X86 DEFINE_IDTENTRY() variants
In-Reply-To: <20240102061700.3807-1-rdunlap@infradead.org>
References: <20240102061700.3807-1-rdunlap@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2024 13:30:20 -0700
Message-ID: <87il4a9n37.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> writes:

> Teach scripts/kernel-doc to handle the various DEFINE_IDTENTRY*() flavors.
>
> This corrects 2 kernel-doc warnings:
>
> arch/x86/entry/common.c:211: warning: expecting prototype for int80_emulation(). Prototype was for DEFINE_IDTENTRY_RAW() instead
>
> arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2170: warning: expecting prototype for spurious_interrupt(). Prototype was for DEFINE_IDTENTRY_IRQ() instead
>
> The script uses 'uname -m' to determine if it is running on i386 or x86_64
> or something else. It also uses "ARCH=<arch>" in the environment variables
> to allow for overriding the processed ARCH.
>
> Alternatively, we could remove the "/**" kernel-doc markers from those
> 2 functions. There are 60 uses of DEFINE_IDTENTRY*() that I see and
> only 2 of them have kernel-doc comments.

So I feel like I'm missing something here; the docs build should be the
same regardless of the architecture it's running on, right?  So why do
we need architecture checks in kernel-doc?

Honestly, it might be better to just remove the kerneldoc comments
rather than add this much more complexity.

Thanks,

jon