notifier: repair slips in kernel-doc comments

  Invoking ./scripts/kernel-doc -none kernel/notifier.c warns:

  kernel/notifier.c:71: warning: Excess function parameter 'returns' description in 'notifier_call_chain'
  kernel/notifier.c:119: warning: Function parameter or member 'v' not described in 'notifier_call_chain_robust'

These two warning are easy to fix, as they are just due to some minor slips
that makes the comment not follow kernel-doc's syntactic expectation.

Fix those minor slips in kernel-doc comments for make W=1 happiness.

Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
---
Rafael, please pick this minor non-urgent patch for your pm tree. Thanks.

 kernel/notifier.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
  

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 11:57 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Invoking ./scripts/kernel-doc -none kernel/notifier.c warns:
>
>   kernel/notifier.c:71: warning: Excess function parameter 'returns' description in 'notifier_call_chain'
>   kernel/notifier.c:119: warning: Function parameter or member 'v' not described in 'notifier_call_chain_robust'
>
> These two warning are easy to fix, as they are just due to some minor slips
> that makes the comment not follow kernel-doc's syntactic expectation.
>
> Fix those minor slips in kernel-doc comments for make W=1 happiness.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
> ---
> Rafael, please pick this minor non-urgent patch for your pm tree. Thanks.

Applied as 6.2 material, but I'm kind of wondering why you decided to
send this to me.

>
>  kernel/notifier.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/notifier.c b/kernel/notifier.c
> index 0d5bd62c480e..ab75637fd904 100644
> --- a/kernel/notifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/notifier.c
> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static int notifier_chain_unregister(struct notifier_block **nl,
>   *                     value of this parameter is -1.
>   *     @nr_calls:      Records the number of notifications sent. Don't care
>   *                     value of this field is NULL.
> - *     @returns:       notifier_call_chain returns the value returned by the
> + *     Return:         notifier_call_chain returns the value returned by the
>   *                     last notifier function called.
>   */
>  static int notifier_call_chain(struct notifier_block **nl,
> @@ -105,13 +105,13 @@ NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(notifier_call_chain);
>   * @val_up:    Value passed unmodified to the notifier function
>   * @val_down:  Value passed unmodified to the notifier function when recovering
>   *              from an error on @val_up
> - * @v          Pointer passed unmodified to the notifier function
> + * @v:         Pointer passed unmodified to the notifier function
>   *
>   * NOTE:       It is important the @nl chain doesn't change between the two
>   *             invocations of notifier_call_chain() such that we visit the
>   *             exact same notifier callbacks; this rules out any RCU usage.
>   *
> - * Returns:    the return value of the @val_up call.
> + * Return:     the return value of the @val_up call.
>   */
>  static int notifier_call_chain_robust(struct notifier_block **nl,
>                                      unsigned long val_up, unsigned long val_down,
> --
> 2.17.1
>
  

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 7:34 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 11:57 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Invoking ./scripts/kernel-doc -none kernel/notifier.c warns:
> >
> >   kernel/notifier.c:71: warning: Excess function parameter 'returns' description in 'notifier_call_chain'
> >   kernel/notifier.c:119: warning: Function parameter or member 'v' not described in 'notifier_call_chain_robust'
> >
> > These two warning are easy to fix, as they are just due to some minor slips
> > that makes the comment not follow kernel-doc's syntactic expectation.
> >
> > Fix those minor slips in kernel-doc comments for make W=1 happiness.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Rafael, please pick this minor non-urgent patch for your pm tree. Thanks.
>
> Applied as 6.2 material, but I'm kind of wondering why you decided to
> send this to me.
>

Well, kernel/notifier.c is one of those files, with no specific
maintainer and no specific obvious subsystem... so the next patch goes
to the last one touching it ;)

More seriously:

get_maintainer.pl -f kernel/notifier.c does state:

"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> (commit_signer:2/3=67%)

Rafael, you took the only two patches in 2022 and carried them forward
to Linus. So, that was my thinking for this minor patch as well; no
deeper thought than that.

If you would not have accepted them, I might have tried Andrew Morton
in a few weeks for the next merge window (v6.3) as a last resort.

Rafael, thanks for picking up this patch.

Lukas

> >
> >  kernel/notifier.c | 6 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/notifier.c b/kernel/notifier.c
> > index 0d5bd62c480e..ab75637fd904 100644
> > --- a/kernel/notifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/notifier.c
> > @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static int notifier_chain_unregister(struct notifier_block **nl,
> >   *                     value of this parameter is -1.
> >   *     @nr_calls:      Records the number of notifications sent. Don't care
> >   *                     value of this field is NULL.
> > - *     @returns:       notifier_call_chain returns the value returned by the
> > + *     Return:         notifier_call_chain returns the value returned by the
> >   *                     last notifier function called.
> >   */
> >  static int notifier_call_chain(struct notifier_block **nl,
> > @@ -105,13 +105,13 @@ NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(notifier_call_chain);
> >   * @val_up:    Value passed unmodified to the notifier function
> >   * @val_down:  Value passed unmodified to the notifier function when recovering
> >   *              from an error on @val_up
> > - * @v          Pointer passed unmodified to the notifier function
> > + * @v:         Pointer passed unmodified to the notifier function
> >   *
> >   * NOTE:       It is important the @nl chain doesn't change between the two
> >   *             invocations of notifier_call_chain() such that we visit the
> >   *             exact same notifier callbacks; this rules out any RCU usage.
> >   *
> > - * Returns:    the return value of the @val_up call.
> > + * Return:     the return value of the @val_up call.
> >   */
> >  static int notifier_call_chain_robust(struct notifier_block **nl,
> >                                      unsigned long val_up, unsigned long val_down,
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >