Re: [PATCH] sched_ext: fix kernel-doc warnings

[Andrea Righi]

On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 09:27:27AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
...
> >> @@ -1408,7 +1409,6 @@ static struct task_struct *scx_task_iter
> >>  /**
> >>   * scx_task_iter_next_locked - Next non-idle task with its rq locked
> >>   * @iter: iterator to walk
> >> - * @include_dead: Whether we should include dead tasks in the iteration
> >>   *
> >>   * Visit the non-idle task with its rq lock held. Allows callers to specify
> >>   * whether they would like to filter out dead tasks. See scx_task_iter_start()
> >> @@ -3132,6 +3132,7 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_task_scx
> >>   * scx_prio_less - Task ordering for core-sched
> >>   * @a: task A
> >>   * @b: task B
> >> + * @in_fi: in forced idle state
> > 
> > in_fi is currently not used / not passed to ops.core_sched_before(), should
> > we metion this? Like appending (unused) or similar to the description?
> 
> Hi Andrea,
> I'm not sure that anyone would update that comment if it did become used  ;(
> so I think it's OK not to mention that.

Yeah, good point (sadly). Then the patch looks good as it is to me. :)

-Andrea