> Am 01.07.2017 um 04:09 schrieb Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>: > > DECLARE_HASHTABLE needs similar handling to DECLARE_BITMAP > because otherwise kernel-doc assumes the member name is the > second, not first macro parameter. > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> > --- > scripts/kernel-doc | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc > index a26a5f2dce39..c1ffd31ff423 100755 > --- a/scripts/kernel-doc > +++ b/scripts/kernel-doc > @@ -2189,6 +2189,8 @@ sub dump_struct($$) { > $members =~ s/\s*CRYPTO_MINALIGN_ATTR//gos; > # replace DECLARE_BITMAP > $members =~ s/DECLARE_BITMAP\s*\(([^,)]+), ([^,)]+)\)/unsigned long > $1\[BITS_TO_LONGS($2)\]/gos; > + # replace DECLARE_HASHTABLE > + $members =~ s/DECLARE_HASHTABLE\s*\(([^,)]+), ([^,)]+)\)/unsigned long > $1\[1 << (($2) - 1)\]/gos; > > create_parameterlist($members, ';', $file); > check_sections($file, $declaration_name, "struct", $sectcheck, > $struct_actual, $nested);
Hi Jakub, did you have an example for me, where it takes effect? / Thanks! I run kernel-doc against the whole tree, but I can't find any change in the generated reST and I have a doubt for what DECLARE_BITMAP is worth. -- Markus -- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
