On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 08:03:24AM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 04:54:39AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:25:53AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> > > > My preference would be to use 'symbols'. I tried to come up with
> > > > something
> > > >
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:27:26PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 13:53:59 +0800
> Changbin Du wrote:
>
> > The 'functions' directive is not only for functions, but also works for
> > structs/unions. So the name is misleading. This patch renames it to
> > 'specific', so now w
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 04:54:39AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:25:53AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> > > My preference would be to use 'symbols'. I tried to come up with
> > > something
> > > but 'symbols' is better than anything I came up with.
> >
> > Maybe 'i
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 13:53:59 +0800
Changbin Du wrote:
> The 'functions' directive is not only for functions, but also works for
> structs/unions. So the name is misleading. This patch renames it to
> 'specific', so now we have export/internal/specific directives to limit
> the functions/types to
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:25:53AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>> > My preference would be to use 'symbols'. I tried to come up with something
>> > but 'symbols' is better than anything I came up with.
>>
>> Maybe 'interfaces' or 'artifacts'. The
Hi
Am 15.10.19 um 13:54 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:25:53AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>>> My preference would be to use 'symbols'. I tried to come up with something
>>> but 'symbols' is better than anything I came up with.
>>
>> Maybe 'interfaces' or 'artifacts'. Th
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:25:53AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> > My preference would be to use 'symbols'. I tried to come up with something
> > but 'symbols' is better than anything I came up with.
>
> Maybe 'interfaces' or 'artifacts'. The term 'symbols' is just as
> imprecise as 'function
Hi
Am 14.10.19 um 22:48 schrieb tim.b...@sony.com:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jani Nikula on October 13, 2019 11:00 PM
>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2019, Changbin Du wrote:
>>> The 'functions' directive is not only for functions, but also works for
>>> structs/unions. So the name is mislea
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 08:48:48PM +, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jani Nikula on October 13, 2019 11:00 PM
> > On Sun, 13 Oct 2019, Changbin Du wrote:
> > > The 'functions' directive is not only for functions, but also works for
> > > structs/unions.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jani Nikula on October 13, 2019 11:00 PM
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2019, Changbin Du wrote:
> > The 'functions' directive is not only for functions, but also works for
> > structs/unions. So the name is misleading. This patch renames it to
> > 'specific', so now we h
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019, Changbin Du wrote:
> The 'functions' directive is not only for functions, but also works for
> structs/unions. So the name is misleading. This patch renames it to
> 'specific', so now we have export/internal/specific directives to limit
> the functions/types to be included in
Hi Changbin,
Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on linus/master]
[cannot apply to v5.4-rc2 next-20191010]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to
The 'functions' directive is not only for functions, but also works for
structs/unions. So the name is misleading. This patch renames it to
'specific', so now we have export/internal/specific directives to limit
the functions/types to be included in documentation. Meanwhile we improved
the warning
13 matches
Mail list logo
