[PATCH] mbuf: fix doxygen for distributor metadata

[Thomas Monjalon]

19/06/2023 16:19, Bruce Richardson:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 09:37:09AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 5:15 PM Bruce Richardson
> > <bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 03:49:42PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> > > > /**< is for post annotations.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 839b20be0e9b ("ethdev: support metadata as flow rule criteria")
> > > > Cc: stable at dpdk.org
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h b/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
> > > > index c692c33ec4..2030b3bef9 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
> > > > +++ b/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
> > > > @@ -584,8 +584,8 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
> > > >                                * @see rte_event_eth_tx_adapter_txq_set()
> > > >                                */
> > > >                       } txadapter; /**< Eventdev ethdev Tx adapter */
> > > > -                     /**< User defined tags. See rte_distributor_process() */
> > > >                       uint32_t usr;
> > > > +                     /**< User defined tags. See rte_distributor_process() */
> > >
> > > Yes, this fixes the issue, but...
> > > I dislike having the comment on the line under the item in question. I
> > > think the post-annotation comments should only be used for comments on the
> > > same line. If the comment is to be on a different line, I think it should
> > > go on the previous line to the item. I also think this tends to be the
> > > style used throughout DPDK generally.
> > 
> > I dislike post annotations (regardless of being on the same line or
> > not) as it is easy to mix the description of fields in a structure.
> > But this file has many other usages of this form and, in doubt, I
> > aligned to them.
> > 
> > I can send a followup cleanup if you want, is that ok for you?
> > 
> 
> If this is consistent with what is already done in the file, then I'm ok
> with it as a fix. Follow-up cleanup is obviously welcome, but doesn't have
> to be you doing it.
> 
> Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com>

Applied, thanks.