This title is consistent with all other macros' documentation,
regardless of the number of examples contained in their "Examples"
sections.

Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
---
 rust/macros/lib.rs | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/rust/macros/lib.rs b/rust/macros/lib.rs
index 9acaa68c974e..d31e50c446b0 100644
--- a/rust/macros/lib.rs
+++ b/rust/macros/lib.rs
@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ pub fn concat_idents(ts: TokenStream) -> TokenStream {
 /// literals (lifetimes and documentation strings are not supported). There is a difference in
 /// supported modifiers as well.
 ///
-/// # Example
+/// # Examples
 ///
 /// ```
 /// # const binder_driver_return_protocol_BR_OK: u32 = 0;

-- 
2.49.0

On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 10:33 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This title is consistent with all other macros' documentation,
> regardless of the number of examples contained in their "Examples"
> sections.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>

I was going to say that I could take this one independently, but we
already had #1 of:

    https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20240906164448.2268368-1-paddymills@proton.me/

I will take that one (which given the `checkpatch.pl` one got stalled,
I should have taken it separately as I mentioned at some point).

Patrick/Hridesh: there are new cases arriving (i.e. singular section
names), so it would be great if the `checkpatch.pl` patch discussion
could be restarted to see if we can land it, i.e. there is now even
more justification behind it just after some months. Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel

On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 12:15 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 10:33 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This title is consistent with all other macros' documentation,
> > regardless of the number of examples contained in their "Examples"
> > sections.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>
>
> I was going to say that I could take this one independently, but we
> already had #1 of:
>
>     https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20240906164448.2268368-1-paddymills@proton.me/
>
> I will take that one (which given the `checkpatch.pl` one got stalled,
> I should have taken it separately as I mentioned at some point).

Sounds good. I'll drop this one.

On Sat May 24, 2025 at 10:33 PM CEST, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> This title is consistent with all other macros' documentation,
> regardless of the number of examples contained in their "Examples"
> sections.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>

Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org>

---
Cheers,
Benno