On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 01:36:44PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 11/26/25 1:33 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On 11/26/25 1:24 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 01:18:29PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >>> On 11/26/25 12:59 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
... > >>>> -The header file include/linux/kernel.h contains a number of macros that > >>>> +There many header files in include/linux/ that contain a number of > >>>> macros that > >>> > >>> There are many > >>> > >>>> you should use, rather than explicitly coding some variant of them > >>>> yourself. > >>>> For example, if you need to calculate the length of an array, take > >>>> advantage > >>>> of the macro > >>> > >>> Otherwise LGTM. Thanks. > >>> > >>> Reviewed-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> Can you also test it? I hope it will be not so broken (as some of the files > >> seems never were before in the generated docs). > > > > It's not completely happy: > > > > linux-next-20251126/Documentation/driver-api/basics:130: > > ../include/linux/util_macros.h:125: ERROR: Unexpected indentation. > > [docutils] > > linux-next-20251126/Documentation/driver-api/basics:130: > > ../include/linux/util_macros.h:123: WARNING: Inline emphasis start-string > > without end-string. [docutils] > > linux-next-20251126/Documentation/driver-api/basics:130: > > ../include/linux/util_macros.h:126: WARNING: Block quote ends without a > > blank line; unexpected unindent. [docutils] > > linux-next-20251126/Documentation/driver-api/basics:130: > > ../include/linux/util_macros.h:130: WARNING: Definition list ends without a > > blank line; unexpected unindent. [docutils] > > > > This little change fixes it for me. Just include it in your patch, please. Thanks, just 15 sec before your message I guessed the same fix. > --- > include/linux/util_macros.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > --- linux-next-20251126.orig/include/linux/util_macros.h > +++ linux-next-20251126/include/linux/util_macros.h > @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ > * a fuss about it. This makes the programmer responsible for tagging > * the functions that can be garbage-collected. > * > - * With the macro it is possible to write the following: > + * With the macro it is possible to write the following:: > * > * static int foo_suspend(struct device *dev) > * { Since it's like this, I just fix both places you pointed out and issue a v2. May I have ypour Tested-by ten? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
