Re: [PATCH] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: fix kernel-doc warnings

[Reinette Chatre]

Hi Randy and Ingo,

On 10/10/2023 8:17 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/9/23 10:07, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Randy,
>>
>> Thank you very much for noticing the bug report and taking the time
>> to fix it.
>>
>> To match the custom of this area, could you please modify
>> the subject to be:
>> 	x86/resctrl: Fix kernel-doc warnings
>>
>> On 10/6/2023 4:51 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> The kernel test robot reported kernel-doc warnings here:
>>>
>>> monitor.c:34: warning: Cannot understand  * @rmid_free_lru    A least recently used list of free RMIDs
>>>  on line 34 - I thought it was a doc line
>>> monitor.c:41: warning: Cannot understand  * @rmid_limbo_count     count of currently unused but (potentially)
>>>  on line 41 - I thought it was a doc line
>>> monitor.c:50: warning: Cannot understand  * @rmid_entry - The entry in the limbo and free lists.
>>>  on line 50 - I thought it was a doc line
>>>
>>> We don't have a syntax for documenting individual data items via
>>> kernel-doc, so remove the "/**" kernel-doc markers and add a hyphen
>>> for consistency.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 6a445edce657 ("x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add RDT monitoring initialization")
>>> Fixes: 24247aeeabe9 ("x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Improve limbo list processing")
>>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Could you please swap the above two tags to follow the tag ordering
>> custom followed by the tip maintainers? For reference you can find the
>> details in section "Ordering of commit tags" of 
>> Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
>>
>> Also, below the "Link:" follows the "Cc:".
>>
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202310062356.lX3xpLP9-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
>>> Cc: Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: x86@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> ---
>>> Not using Closes: since this patch only addresses some of the issues
>>>   reported.
> 
> Hi Ingo,
> 
> Since you have already committed this patch, how would you like to handle
> these requested changes?
> 

All my comments were related to my understanding of x86 customs with the goal
to make it acceptable to x86 maintainers. The change itself is good. If this
patch has already been merged by x86 maintainers then I surely will not object.

Reinette