Re: [PATCH] regulator: fix fatal kernel-doc error

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:09:24AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 09/17/13 03:32, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Applied with the first line redone, but this seems like really terrible
> > quality of implementation for the kernel-doc stuff - it shouldn't
> > explode over something readily copable with like this.  Should we also
> > not pick this sort of thing up in -next?

> /** means kernel-doc syntax and it was not in proper kernel-doc format,
> but maybe it could just be a Warning instead of a fatal Error.

Yes, that's what I'm saying - it really doesn't seem like something that
should be a fatal error, that's far too fragile.

> Ideally we should pick it up in -next, of course, but I doubt that anyone
> is running kernel-doc on linux-next.  I used to do that, but there are
> too many errors/warnings.  I suppose that I could just concentrate on
> (fatal) Errors in linux-next and ignore the Warnings.

Could these checks be added to Fengguang's tester?  If nobody's looking
at the output (I've never found the processed output useful myself) or
running the tool then it's a bit worrying...

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature