doc warnings in *80211
Subsystems (3)
Jakub Kicinski
maintainerHi,
doing basic sanity checks before submitting the net-next PR I spotted that we have these warnings when building documentation on net-next:
Documentation/driver-api/80211/cfg80211:48: ./include/net/cfg80211.h:6960: WARNING: Duplicate C declaration, also defined at driver-api/80211/cfg80211:6924. Declaration is '.. c:function:: void cfg80211_rx_assoc_resp (struct net_device *dev, struct cfg80211_rx_assoc_resp *data)'. Documentation/driver-api/80211/mac80211:109: ./include/net/mac80211.h:5046: WARNING: Duplicate C declaration, also defined at driver-api/80211/mac80211:1065. Declaration is '.. c:function:: void ieee80211_tx_status (struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct sk_buff *skb)'.
The test is highly unscientific (checkout net, make htmldocs, checkout net-next, make htmldocs) so IDK if these are new...
Hi,
Quoted 5 lines
doing basic sanity checks before submitting the net-next PR I spotted that we have these warnings when building documentation on net-next:
Documentation/driver-api/80211/cfg80211:48:./include/net/cfg80211.h:6960: WARNING: Duplicate C declaration, also defined at driver-api/80211/cfg80211:6924. Declaration is '.. c:function:: voidcfg80211_rx_assoc_resp(structnet_device*dev, structcfg80211_rx_assoc_resp*data)'.
Hmm. That's interesting. I guess it cannot distinguish between the type of identifier?
struct cfg80211_rx_assoc_resp vs. cfg80211_rx_assoc_resp()
Not sure what do about it - rename one of them?
Quoted 2 lines
Documentation/driver-api/80211/mac80211:109:./include/net/mac80211.h:5046: WARNING: Duplicate C declaration, also defined at driver-api/80211/mac80211:1065. Declaration is '.. c:function:: voidieee80211_tx_status(structieee80211_hw*hw, structsk_buff*skb)'.
Same here actually!
I don't think either of these is new.
johannes
Jakub Kicinski
maintainerQuoted 11 lines · On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 09:51:07 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
Quoted 5 lines
doing basic sanity checks before submitting the net-next PR I spotted that we have these warnings when building documentation on net-next:
Documentation/driver-api/80211/cfg80211:48:./include/net/cfg80211.h:6960: WARNING: Duplicate C declaration, also defined at driver-api/80211/cfg80211:6924. Declaration is '.. c:function:: voidcfg80211_rx_assoc_resp(structnet_device*dev, structcfg80211_rx_assoc_resp*data)'.Hmm. That's interesting. I guess it cannot distinguish between the type of identifier?
struct
cfg80211_rx_assoc_respvs.cfg80211_rx_assoc_resp()
Quoted 8 lines
Not sure what do about it - rename one of them?
Quoted 2 lines
Documentation/driver-api/80211/mac80211:109:./include/net/mac80211.h:5046: WARNING: Duplicate C declaration, also defined at driver-api/80211/mac80211:1065. Declaration is '.. c:function:: voidieee80211_tx_status(structieee80211_hw*hw, structsk_buff*skb)'.Same here actually!
I don't think either of these is new.
Thanks for checking!
Adding linux-doc, but I presume Jon & co are aware if this is not new.
Hi,
Quoted 17 lines · Jakub Kicinski
Quoted 16 lines · On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 09:51:07 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
Quoted 5 lines
doing basic sanity checks before submitting the net-next PR I spotted that we have these warnings when building documentation on net-next:
Documentation/driver-api/80211/cfg80211:48:./include/net/cfg80211.h:6960: WARNING: Duplicate C declaration, also defined at driver-api/80211/cfg80211:6924. Declaration is '.. c:function:: voidcfg80211_rx_assoc_resp(structnet_device*dev, structcfg80211_rx_assoc_resp*data)'.Hmm. That's interesting. I guess it cannot distinguish between the type of identifier?
struct
cfg80211_rx_assoc_respvs.cfg80211_rx_assoc_resp()Not sure what do about it - rename one of them?
Quoted 2 lines
Documentation/driver-api/80211/mac80211:109:./include/net/mac80211.h:5046: WARNING: Duplicate C declaration, also defined at driver-api/80211/mac80211:1065. Declaration is '.. c:function:: voidieee80211_tx_status(structieee80211_hw*hw, structsk_buff*skb)'.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Same here actually!
I don't think either of these is new.
Thanks for checking!
Adding linux-doc, but I presume Jon & co are aware if this is not new.
Yes, this is a known issue of Sphinx >=3.0, which prevents us to bump required version of Sphinx from 2.4.x.
Link to a relevant mail from Mauro in the lore archive:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]/
Note that the same warnings can be seen when a kernel-doc comment is included from multiple .rst files under Documentation/ by accident.
Actually, Sphinx < 3.0 can not detect such true duplicates.
As far as I see, this issue still remains in the latest version of Sphinx (5.2.3).
HTH,
Akira