Re: [PATCH] scsi: docs: Remove obsolete scsi typedef text from scsi_mid_low_api

[Randy Dunlap]

On 9/5/20 2:03 PM, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
> Commit 91ebc1facd77 ("scsi: core: remove Scsi_Cmnd typedef") removed
> the Scsi_cmnd typedef but it was still mentioned in a paragraph in the
> "SCSI mid_level - lower_level driver interface" documentation page.
> Remove this obsolete paragraph.
> 
> Suggested-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Suggested-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks.

> ---
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Is this documentation page still relevant or should it be removed? I'm asking
> since it hasn't been updated in a while and there's mention of 2.6 kernel.
> 
> In case it is still relevant, would patches changing the embedded kernel-docs
> for references to the kernel-docs in the source files be welcome?
> Also, I see that for example, scsi_add_device, has a kernel-doc in this page,
> even though there isn't any in the source code. Would a patch moving this
> function description to the source code be welcome?
> 
> Thanks,
> Nícolas
> 
>  Documentation/scsi/scsi_mid_low_api.rst | 6 ------
>  1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/scsi/scsi_mid_low_api.rst b/Documentation/scsi/scsi_mid_low_api.rst
> index 5358bc10689e..5bc17d012b25 100644
> --- a/Documentation/scsi/scsi_mid_low_api.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/scsi/scsi_mid_low_api.rst
> @@ -271,12 +271,6 @@ Conventions
>  First, Linus Torvalds's thoughts on C coding style can be found in the
>  Documentation/process/coding-style.rst file.
>  
> -Next, there is a movement to "outlaw" typedefs introducing synonyms for
> -struct tags. Both can be still found in the SCSI subsystem, but
> -the typedefs have been moved to a single file, scsi_typedefs.h to
> -make their future removal easier, for example:
> -"typedef struct scsi_cmnd Scsi_Cmnd;"
> -
>  Also, most C99 enhancements are encouraged to the extent they are supported
>  by the relevant gcc compilers. So C99 style structure and array
>  initializers are encouraged where appropriate. Don't go too far,
> 


-- 
~Randy