Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <57f68fef-8a45-184d-4536-52b94fcc9c03@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Oct 2022 07:23:57 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.2
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc:     linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org
References: <20221004072646.64ad2c8c@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: doc warnings in *80211
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221004072646.64ad2c8c@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 07:26:46 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 09:51:07 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
>> > doing basic sanity checks before submitting the net-next PR I spotted
>> > that we have these warnings when building documentation on net-next:
>> > 
>> > Documentation/driver-api/80211/cfg80211:48: ./include/net/cfg80211.h:6960: WARNING: Duplicate C declaration, also defined at driver-api/80211/cfg80211:6924.
>> > Declaration is '.. c:function:: void cfg80211_rx_assoc_resp (struct net_device *dev, struct cfg80211_rx_assoc_resp *data)'.  
>> 
>> Hmm. That's interesting. I guess it cannot distinguish between the type
>> of identifier?
>> 
>> struct cfg80211_rx_assoc_resp vs. cfg80211_rx_assoc_resp()
>> 
>> Not sure what do about it - rename one of them?
>> 
>> > Documentation/driver-api/80211/mac80211:109: ./include/net/mac80211.h:5046: WARNING: Duplicate C declaration, also defined at driver-api/80211/mac80211:1065.
>> > Declaration is '.. c:function:: void ieee80211_tx_status (struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct sk_buff *skb)'.  
>> 
>> Same here actually!
>> 
>> I don't think either of these is new.
> 
> Thanks for checking!
> 
> Adding linux-doc, but I presume Jon & co are aware if this is not new.

Yes, this is a known issue of Sphinx >=3.0, which prevents us to
bump required version of Sphinx from 2.4.x.

Link to a relevant mail from Mauro in the lore archive:

  https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220702122311.358c0219@sal.lan/

Note that the same warnings can be seen when a kernel-doc comment is
included from multiple .rst files under Documentation/ by accident.

Actually, Sphinx < 3.0 can not detect such true duplicates.

As far as I see, this issue still remains in the latest version of
Sphinx (5.2.3).

HTH,
Akira