Use the same ordering in the comments section as it
is in the structure below.
Signed-off-by: Rostislav Lisovy <[email protected]>
---
include/net/cfg80211.h | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/net/cfg80211.h b/include/net/cfg80211.h
index 5c3acd0..af0ef26 100644
--- a/include/net/cfg80211.h
+++ b/include/net/cfg80211.h
@@ -2182,6 +2182,11 @@ struct cfg80211_qos_map {
* @leave_mesh: leave the current mesh network
* (invoked with the wireless_dev mutex held)
*
+ * @join_ocb: join the OCB network with the specified parameters
+ * (invoked with the wireless_dev mutex held)
+ * @leave_ocb: leave the current OCB network
+ * (invoked with the wireless_dev mutex held)
+ *
* @get_mesh_config: Get the current mesh configuration
*
* @update_mesh_config: Update mesh parameters on a running mesh.
@@ -2362,11 +2367,6 @@ struct cfg80211_qos_map {
* with the peer followed by immediate teardown when the addition is later
* rejected)
* @del_tx_ts: remove an existing TX TS
- *
- * @join_ocb: join the OCB network with the specified parameters
- * (invoked with the wireless_dev mutex held)
- * @leave_ocb: leave the current OCB network
- * (invoked with the wireless_dev mutex held)
*/
struct cfg80211_ops {
int (*suspend)(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct cfg80211_wowlan *wow);
--
2.0.0.rc4
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 13:49 +0100, Rostislav Lisovy wrote:
> Use the same ordering in the comments section as it
> is in the structure below.
Well, I think I confused you :-)
The report from Fengguang's build bot was actually when there was no
documentation, and then I added it and I guess you thought that it was
sending out the report because it was in the wrong place?
Anyway, I think I'll just leave it as is, and not apply this, ok?
johannes
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 13:55 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 13:49 +0100, Rostislav Lisovy wrote:
> > Use the same ordering in the comments section as it
> > is in the structure below.
>
> Well, I think I confused you :-)
> The report from Fengguang's build bot was actually when there was no
> documentation, and then I added it and I guess you thought that it was
> sending out the report because it was in the wrong place?
>
> Anyway, I think I'll just leave it as is, and not apply this, ok?
Yes, that is what I thought. The second confusion was that most of the
other comments were not in the same order as their fields.
Ok, no need to apply this.
Rostislav