From: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
The field "probe_resp_offload" was already documented above the
definition of struct wiphy. Both comments were identical.
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
---
include/net/cfg80211.h | 5 -----
1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
From: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
The field "privid" was already documented above the definition of struct
wiphy. Comments were not identical, but they said more or less the same
thing.
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
---
include/net/cfg80211.h | 5 -----
1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
From: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
The field "_net" was already documented above the definition of struct
wiphy. Both comments were identical.
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
---
include/net/cfg80211.h | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
@@ -4649,7 +4649,6 @@ struct wiphy {structlist_headwdev_list;-/* the network namespace this phy lives in currently */possible_net_t_net;#ifdef CONFIG_CFG80211_WEXT
From: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
The field "perm_addr" was already documented above the definition of
struct wiphy. Comments were almost identical.
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
---
include/net/cfg80211.h | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
@@ -4551,7 +4551,6 @@ struct cfg80211_pmsr_capabilities {structwiphy{/* assign these fields before you register the wiphy */-/* permanent MAC address(es) */u8perm_addr[ETH_ALEN];u8addr_mask[ETH_ALEN];
From: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
The field "privid" is documented twice. Comments were more or less the
same. The patch merge them.
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
---
include/net/cfg80211.h | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
From: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
The field "dev" was documented on two places. This patch merges the
comments.
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
---
include/net/cfg80211.h | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
@@ -4633,8 +4635,6 @@ struct wiphy {conststructieee80211_regdomain__rcu*regd;-/* the item in /sys/class/ieee80211/ points to this,-*youneeduseset_wiphy_dev()(seebelow)*/structdevicedev;boolregistered;
From: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
The field "reg_notifier" was already documented above the definition of
struct wiphy. The comment inside the definition of the struct did not
bring more information.
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
---
include/net/cfg80211.h | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
@@ -4626,7 +4626,6 @@ struct wiphy {structieee80211_supported_band*bands[NUM_NL80211_BANDS];-/* Lets us get back the wiphy on the callback */void(*reg_notifier)(structwiphy*wiphy,structregulatory_request*request);
From: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
Field "registered" was documented three times: twice in the
documentation block of struct wiphy and once inside the struct
definition. This patch keep only one comment.
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
---
include/net/cfg80211.h | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> Date: 2020-02-21 12:02:18
On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 12:56 +0100, Jerome Pouiller wrote:
+ * intervals:
+ * * = 0: all beacon intervals for different interface must be same.
+ * * > 0: any beacon interval for the interface part of this
+ * combination AND GCD of all beacon intervals from beaconing
+ * interfaces of this combination must be greater or equal to this
+ * value.
Hmm. I have a feeling I actually split this one out because
- * = 0
- * all beacon intervals for different interface must be same.
- * > 0
- * any beacon interval for the interface part of this combination AND
- * GCD of all beacon intervals from beaconing interfaces of this
- * combination must be greater or equal to this value.
This generates the nicer output, not with bullets but as a definition
list or something.
johannes
On Friday 21 February 2020 13:02:20 CET Johannes Berg wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 12:56 +0100, Jerome Pouiller wrote:
quoted
+ * intervals:
+ * * = 0: all beacon intervals for different interface must be same.
+ * * > 0: any beacon interval for the interface part of this
+ * combination AND GCD of all beacon intervals from beaconing
+ * interfaces of this combination must be greater or equal to this
+ * value.
Hmm. I have a feeling I actually split this one out because
quoted
- * = 0
- * all beacon intervals for different interface must be same.
- * > 0
- * any beacon interval for the interface part of this combination AND
- * GCD of all beacon intervals from beaconing interfaces of this
- * combination must be greater or equal to this value.
This generates the nicer output, not with bullets but as a definition
list or something.
Indeed.
Unfortunately, I hasn't been able to use the same syntax in struct
description: if sphinx find a blank line, it considers that the rest of
the input is the long description of the struct.
--
Jérôme Pouiller
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> Date: 2020-02-21 12:41:33
On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 12:38 +0000, Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
quoted
quoted
- * = 0
- * all beacon intervals for different interface must be same.
- * > 0
- * any beacon interval for the interface part of this combination AND
- * GCD of all beacon intervals from beaconing interfaces of this
- * combination must be greater or equal to this value.
This generates the nicer output, not with bullets but as a definition
list or something.
Indeed.
Unfortunately, I hasn't been able to use the same syntax in struct
description: if sphinx find a blank line, it considers that the rest of
the input is the long description of the struct.
So let's just leave it as is. I don't consider using the same style
(inline or header) everywhere to be even nearly as important as the
output :)
johannes
On Friday 21 February 2020 13:41:34 CET Johannes Berg wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 12:38 +0000, Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
quoted
quoted
quoted
- * = 0
- * all beacon intervals for different interface must be same.
- * > 0
- * any beacon interval for the interface part of this combination AND
- * GCD of all beacon intervals from beaconing interfaces of this
- * combination must be greater or equal to this value.
This generates the nicer output, not with bullets but as a definition
list or something.
Indeed.
Unfortunately, I hasn't been able to use the same syntax in struct
description: if sphinx find a blank line, it considers that the rest of
the input is the long description of the struct.
So let's just leave it as is. I don't consider using the same style
(inline or header) everywhere to be even nearly as important as the
output :)
Ok.
Alternatively, the following syntax generate an output close to the
original:
* intervals:
* := 0: all beacon intervals for different interface must be same.
* :> 0: any beacon interval for the interface part of this
* combination AND GCD of all beacon intervals from beaconing
* interfaces of this combination must be greater or equal to this
* value.
--
Jérôme Pouiller