From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06986A0548; Wed, 19 May 2021 18:53:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC6C40041; Wed, 19 May 2021 18:53:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074994003F for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 18:53:27 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: SiKHs+Zzvr/LRRF4XmXk8wkboN7PVtULGJqqUbFfM1vLGeXF1kQTc2MLbwCmPyReirbIF7ftdj /Hkb1hc8FMdw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,9989"; a="180626582" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,313,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="180626582" Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 May 2021 09:53:26 -0700 IronPort-SDR: hwCYETLTLvfeOe6R5NkK+0p8nKUy5Bsd6Xx3tdQVp7qlAUcLJOmfumkzhNLyss23l8kigh6eZf o8qOc5ZvbyTQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,313,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="411811175" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.213.224.148]) ([10.213.224.148]) by orsmga002-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 May 2021 09:53:24 -0700 To: Thomas Monjalon , dev@dpdk.org Cc: Ori Kam , Andrew Rybchenko , Ajit Khaparde References: <20210519162725.2179226-1-thomas@monjalon.net> From: Ferruh Yigit X-User: ferruhy Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 17:53:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210519162725.2179226-1-thomas@monjalon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: fix comments of packet integrity flow item X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 5/19/2021 5:27 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > The Doxygen comments are placed before the related lines, > but the markers were /**< instead of /** > > Fixes: b10a421a1f3b ("ethdev: add packet integrity check flow rules") > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon > --- > lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h | 18 +++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h > index 94c8c1ccc8..d7e0082dc7 100644 > --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h > +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h > @@ -1708,7 +1708,7 @@ rte_flow_item_geneve_opt_mask = { > #endif > > struct rte_flow_item_integrity { > - /**< Tunnel encapsulation level the item should apply to. > + /** Tunnel encapsulation level the item should apply to. > * @see rte_flow_action_rss > */ > uint32_t level; > @@ -1716,21 +1716,21 @@ struct rte_flow_item_integrity { > union { > __extension__ > struct { > - /**< The packet is valid after passing all HW checks. */ > + /** The packet is valid after passing all HW checks. */ > uint64_t packet_ok:1; > - /**< L2 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */ > + /** L2 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */ > uint64_t l2_ok:1; > - /**< L3 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */ > + /** L3 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */ > uint64_t l3_ok:1; > - /**< L4 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */ > + /** L4 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */ > uint64_t l4_ok:1; > - /**< L2 layer CRC is valid. */ > + /** L2 layer CRC is valid. */ > uint64_t l2_crc_ok:1; > - /**< IPv4 layer checksum is valid. */ > + /** IPv4 layer checksum is valid. */ > uint64_t ipv4_csum_ok:1; > - /**< L4 layer checksum is valid. */ > + /** L4 layer checksum is valid. */ > uint64_t l4_csum_ok:1; > - /**< The l3 length is smaller than the frame length. */ > + /** L3 length is smaller than frame length. */ > uint64_t l3_len_ok:1; > uint64_t reserved:56; > }; > +1 to fix but the struct is not listed at all in the API documentation, because it is missing Doxygen comment for the struct itself. Can it be possible to add a doxygen comment for the struct, even it is very basic, to enable it to be documented?