On 09/05/2024 15:24, Andrew Lunn wrote:

On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 03:04:36PM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:

quoted

2024-05-08, 22:31:51 +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote:

quoted

On 08/05/2024 18:06, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:

quoted

2024-05-06, 03:16:20 +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/net/ovpn/ovpnstruct.h b/drivers/net/ovpn/ovpnstruct.h
index ee05b8a2c61d..b79d4f0474b0 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ovpn/ovpnstruct.h
+++ b/drivers/net/ovpn/ovpnstruct.h

@@ -17,12 +17,19 @@
    * @dev: the actual netdev representing the tunnel
    * @registered: whether dev is still registered with netdev or not
    * @mode: device operation mode (i.e. p2p, mp, ..)
+ * @lock: protect this object
+ * @event_wq: used to schedule generic events that may sleep and that need to be
+ *            performed outside of softirq context
+ * @peer: in P2P mode, this is the only remote peer
    * @dev_list: entry for the module wide device list
    */
   struct ovpn_struct {
   	struct net_device *dev;
   	bool registered;
   	enum ovpn_mode mode;
+	spinlock_t lock; /* protect writing to the ovpn_struct object */

nit: the comment isn't really needed since you have kdoc saying the same thing

True, but checkpatch.pl (or some other script?) was still throwing a
warning, therefore I added this comment to silence it.

Ok, then I guess the comment (and the other one below) can stay. That
sounds like a checkpatch.pl bug.

I suspect it is more complex than that. checkpatch does not understand
kdoc. It just knows the rule that there should be a comment next to a
lock, hopefully indicating what the lock protects. In order to fix
this, checkpatch would need to somehow invoke the kdoc parser, and ask
it if the lock has kdoc documentation.

I suspect we are just going to have to live with this.

since we are now requiring new code to always have kdoc, can't we just 
drop the checkpatch warning?

Regards,


-- 
Antonio Quartulli
OpenVPN Inc.