[-next] sched: fix cid_lock kernel-doc warnings

  Fix kernel-doc warnings for cid_lock and use_cid_lock.
These comments are not in kernel-doc format.

kernel/sched/core.c:11496: warning: Cannot understand  * @cid_lock: Guarantee forward-progress of cid allocation.
 on line 11496 - I thought it was a doc line
kernel/sched/core.c:11505: warning: Cannot understand  * @use_cid_lock: Select cid allocation behavior: lock-free vs spinlock.
 on line 11505 - I thought it was a doc line

Fixes: 223baf9d17f2 ("sched: Fix performance regression introduced by mm_cid")
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
---
 kernel/sched/core.c |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
  

On 2023-04-27 23:11, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Fix kernel-doc warnings for cid_lock and use_cid_lock.
> These comments are not in kernel-doc format.
> 
> kernel/sched/core.c:11496: warning: Cannot understand  * @cid_lock: Guarantee forward-progress of cid allocation.
>   on line 11496 - I thought it was a doc line
> kernel/sched/core.c:11505: warning: Cannot understand  * @use_cid_lock: Select cid allocation behavior: lock-free vs spinlock.
>   on line 11505 - I thought it was a doc line
> 

Right. It made sense to have those as kernel-doc when those were 
mm_struct fields in previous versions of the patch, but not anymore now 
that those are stand-alone static variables.

Acked-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>

Thanks,

Mathieu

> Fixes: 223baf9d17f2 ("sched: Fix performance regression introduced by mm_cid")
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
> Cc: "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> ---
>   kernel/sched/core.c |    4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -- a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -11492,7 +11492,7 @@ void call_trace_sched_update_nr_running(
>   
>   #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_MM_CID
>   
> -/**
> +/*
>    * @cid_lock: Guarantee forward-progress of cid allocation.
>    *
>    * Concurrency ID allocation within a bitmap is mostly lock-free. The cid_lock
> @@ -11501,7 +11501,7 @@ void call_trace_sched_update_nr_running(
>    */
>   DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(cid_lock);
>   
> -/**
> +/*
>    * @use_cid_lock: Select cid allocation behavior: lock-free vs spinlock.
>    *
>    * When @use_cid_lock is 0, the cid allocation is lock-free. When contention is
  

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 08:11:11PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Fix kernel-doc warnings for cid_lock and use_cid_lock.
> These comments are not in kernel-doc format.
> 
> kernel/sched/core.c:11496: warning: Cannot understand  * @cid_lock: Guarantee forward-progress of cid allocation.
>  on line 11496 - I thought it was a doc line
> kernel/sched/core.c:11505: warning: Cannot understand  * @use_cid_lock: Select cid allocation behavior: lock-free vs spinlock.
>  on line 11505 - I thought it was a doc line
> 
> Fixes: 223baf9d17f2 ("sched: Fix performance regression introduced by mm_cid")
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>

Blergh, so mostly I avoid kerneldoc like the plague; because then you
get random people doing 'fixups' that end up making the actual comment
unreadable garbage.

Mostly my answer to any such patch is to simply remove the extra * and
call it fixed.

But now the thing presumes to know better? :-(

Anyway, in this case I suppose we can add it on and see, there's still a
fair number of actual kerneldoc comments in that file.

>  kernel/sched/core.c |    4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -- a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -11492,7 +11492,7 @@ void call_trace_sched_update_nr_running(
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_MM_CID
>  
> -/**
> +/*
>   * @cid_lock: Guarantee forward-progress of cid allocation.
>   *
>   * Concurrency ID allocation within a bitmap is mostly lock-free. The cid_lock
> @@ -11501,7 +11501,7 @@ void call_trace_sched_update_nr_running(
>   */
>  DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(cid_lock);
>  
> -/**
> +/*
>   * @use_cid_lock: Select cid allocation behavior: lock-free vs spinlock.
>   *
>   * When @use_cid_lock is 0, the cid allocation is lock-free. When contention is
  

On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 03:20:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 08:11:11PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > Fix kernel-doc warnings for cid_lock and use_cid_lock.
> > These comments are not in kernel-doc format.
> > 
> > kernel/sched/core.c:11496: warning: Cannot understand  * @cid_lock: Guarantee forward-progress of cid allocation.
> >  on line 11496 - I thought it was a doc line
> > kernel/sched/core.c:11505: warning: Cannot understand  * @use_cid_lock: Select cid allocation behavior: lock-free vs spinlock.
> >  on line 11505 - I thought it was a doc line
> > 
> > Fixes: 223baf9d17f2 ("sched: Fix performance regression introduced by mm_cid")
> > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> 
> Blergh, so mostly I avoid kerneldoc like the plague; because then you
> get random people doing 'fixups' that end up making the actual comment
> unreadable garbage.
> 
> Mostly my answer to any such patch is to simply remove the extra * and
> call it fixed.
> 
> But now the thing presumes to know better? :-(

Bah, I should go sleep more.. this removes them. All good.