linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs: make kernel-doc handle varargs properly

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2016 09:28:45 +0200
From:   Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: make kernel-doc handle varargs properly


Am 06.09.2016 um 15:36 schrieb Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>:

> On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:43:18 +0300
> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:
>>> As far as I can tell, the handling of "..." arguments has never worked
>>> right, so any documentation provided was ignored in favor of "variable
>>> arguments."  This makes kernel-doc handle "@...:" as documented.  It does
>>> *not* fix spots in kerneldoc comments that don't follow that convention,
>>> but they are no more broken than before.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
>>> ---
>>> scripts/kernel-doc | 3 ++-
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc
>>> index c681e8f0ecc2..e6c52ab938fd 100755
>>> --- a/scripts/kernel-doc
>>> +++ b/scripts/kernel-doc
>>> @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ my $doc_com_body = '\s*\* ?';
>>> my $doc_decl = $doc_com . '(\w+)';
>>> # @params and a strictly limited set of supported section names
>>> my $doc_sect = $doc_com . 
>>> -    '\s*(\@\w+|description|context|returns?|notes?|examples?)\s*:(.*)';
>>> +    '\s*(\@[.\w]+|description|context|returns?|notes?|examples?)\s*:(.*)';  
>> 
>> So this will now accept "@foo.bar.baz:" too, right? Should it be
>> something like this instead?
>> 
>> '\s*(\@\w+|\@\.\.\.|description|context|returns?|notes?|examples?)\s*:(.*)';
> 
> That works too.
> 
> I had a sort of vision of catching the "args..." notation that a lot of
> kerneldoc comments use and doing the right thing, but ran out of patience
> before getting it to work.  There are times when I find Markus's python
> kernel-doc replacement tempting...

Feel free to contact me if you want to see a RFC.

OT but BTW: Does sparse parse macros, or did sparse precompile? I mean,
are macros objects of sparse's AST or does the AST only contain
C objects?

Sorry if my question is dump, I haven't had time to take a serious
look on sparse.

-- Markus --

>  Maybe I'll beat my head against that
> wall one more time when I get a chance and, failing that, just use the
> above.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jon