On Samstag, 7. Oktober 2017 20:59:52 CEST David Miller wrote:
From: Sven Eckelmann sven@narfation.org Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 14:21:22 +0200
The parameter extack was added to batadv_softif_slave_add without adding the kernel-doc for it. This caused kernel-doc warnings.
Signed-off-by: Sven Eckelmann sven@narfation.org Cc: David Ahern dsahern@gmail.com
I'm happy to apply this but where are the other two patches of this series and the series header posting?
They are on the b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org mailing list. And they deal with the "extack" compat problems of the out-of-tree module build.
Why were you cc'ed for the patch 3: ==================================
David Ahern and David Miller were involved in adding following changes to batman-adv:
* net: Add extack to ndo_add_slave * net: Add extack to upper device linking
These were not posted to the batman-adv mailing list.
An automatic kernel-doc run on a build machine noticed a minor problem in the first patch. Since I was not involved in the original change (and have not checked what was discussed in the past about it), I could only guess how the kernel-doc should have looked like. But you, David Ahern or anyone else from netdev@... could have a different, more educated opinion about the correct documentation - this is why you were Cc'ed.
Why are you not Cc'ed on the patch 1+2: ======================================
The changes are about code which is not present in the upstream kernel. It only deals with changes required to build the extracted batman-adv module against a different kernel. These changes were required to get the "extack" stuff working on Linux 4.14 and below.
So, it is not really relevant for you but for some people on the b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org mailing list. This is why everything (including the third patch) was send directly ("To:") to the mentioned mailing list.
Are you expected to apply this change: =====================================
I was hoping that Simon is picking the patch up and forwards it do you in a proper pull request. But I would doubt that he has a big problem with you applying this single line kernel-doc change. At least it is less work for him and less extra noise on both mailing lists...
But feel free to tell us your preferred solution.
Kind regards, Sven