Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-116650-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <287eb3f74e4c31adb065668ff49c8e1577388227.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Fix duplicate C declaration warnings
From: Amogh <amogh.linux.kernel.dev@gmail.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: airlied@gmail.com, daniel@ffwll.ch, maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com, 
	mripard@kernel.org, tzimmermann@suse.de, corbet@lwn.net, 
	javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, 
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:03:10 +0530
In-Reply-To: <Zf8--QSkEMDe9zyp@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20240323163148.23497-1-amogh.linux.kernel.dev@gmail.com>
	 <Zf8--QSkEMDe9zyp@casper.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.4 (by Flathub.org) 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Sat, 2024-03-23 at 20:43 +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 10:01:47PM +0530, Amogh Cheluvaraj wrote:
> > Fix duplicate C declaration warnings at
> > Documentation/gpu/drm-kms.rst that was found by
> > compiling htmldocs
>=20
> I'm sure this removes the warning, but it removes all kernel-doc
> which exists in drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c.=C2=A0 Isn't there a more
> granular fix than this?
>=20

After further introspection of the file drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c, I
found that the warning is caused by having the same name for both the
struct and the function as in "const struct drm_format_info
*drm_format_info(u32 format)". This is an issue found using the latest
version of Sphinx as reported by Akira Yokosawa in message id
564cbd05-8788-9223-1ecc-59e7fc41b46a@gmail.com. So by changing the
function name to something like "query_drm_format_info(u32 format)" is
a possible fix. Question is what should I rename this function to, that
aligns with the coding standards? Also suggest a new function name for
"drm_modeset_lock" that causes the second warning.