linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] scripts/kernel-doc: check that non-void fcts describe their return value

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:45:38 -0800
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To:	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
CC:	Yacine Belkadi <yacine.belkadi.1@...il.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] scripts/kernel-doc: check that non-void fcts describe
 their return value

On 11/20/2012 01:29 AM, Michal Marek wrote:

> On 30.9.2012 23:32, Yacine Belkadi wrote:
>> If a function has a return value, but its kernel-doc comment doesn't contain a
>> "Return" section, then emit the following warning:
>>
>>    Warning(file.h:129): No description found for return value of 'fct'
>>
>> Note: This check emits a lot of warnings at the moment, because many functions
>> don't have a 'Return' doc section. So until the number of warnings goes
>> sufficiently down, the check is only performed in verbose mode.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yacine Belkadi <yacine.belkadi.1@...il.com>
> 
> Randy, are you fine merging this to kbuild.git?
> 
> Thanks,
> Michal

Hi Michal,
Thanks for checking with me.

Yacine, I have a few small comments on the patch.
After they are fixed, I will ack it for merging.

> 
>> ---
>>  scripts/kernel-doc |   34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc
>> index 8fd107a..7f82aa8 100755
>> --- a/scripts/kernel-doc
>> +++ b/scripts/kernel-doc
>> @@ -130,6 +130,8 @@ use strict;
>>  # should document the "Context:" of the function, e.g. whether the functions
>>  # can be called form interrupts. Unlike other sections you can end it with an
>>  # empty line.
>> +# A non-void function should have a "Return:" section describing the return
>> +# value.


      value(s).

>>  # Example-sections should contain the string EXAMPLE so that they are marked
>>  # appropriately in DocBook.
>>  #
>> @@ -298,6 +300,7 @@ my $section_default = "Description";	# default section
>>  my $section_intro = "Introduction";
>>  my $section = $section_default;
>>  my $section_context = "Context";
>> +my $section_return = "Return";
>>  
>>  my $undescribed = "-- undescribed --";
>>  
>> @@ -1767,6 +1770,28 @@ sub check_sections($$$$$$) {
>>  }
>>  
>>  ##
>> +# Checks the section describing the return value of a function.
>> +sub check_return_section {
>> +        my $file = shift;
>> +        my $declaration_name = shift;
>> +        my $return_type = shift;
>> +
>> +        # Ignore an empty return type (It's a macro)
>> +        # Ignore functions with a "void" return type. (But don't ignore "void *")
>> +        if (($return_type eq "") || ($return_type =~ /void\s*\w*\s*$/)) {
>> +                return;
>> +        }
>> +
>> +        if (!defined($sections{$section_return}) ||
>> +            $sections{$section_return} eq "") {
>> +                print STDERR "Warning(${file}:$.): " .
>> +                "No description found for return value of " .
>> +                "'$declaration_name'\n";
>> +                ++$warnings;


Please indent the "No description" and following lines more than the "print" line
is indented.

>> +        }
>> +}
>> +
>> +##
>>  # takes a function prototype and the name of the current file being
>>  # processed and spits out all the details stored in the global
>>  # arrays/hashes.
>> @@ -1837,6 +1862,15 @@ sub dump_function($$) {
>>  	my $prms = join " ", @parameterlist;
>>  	check_sections($file, $declaration_name, "function", $sectcheck, $prms, "");
>>  
>> +        # This check emits a lot of warnings at the moment, because many
>> +        # functions don't have a 'Return' doc section. So until the number
>> +        # of warnings goes sufficiently down, the check is only performed in
>> +        # verbose mode.
>> +        # TODO: always perform the check.
>> +        if ($verbose) {
>> +                check_return_section($file, $declaration_name, $return_type);
>> +        }
>> +
>>      output_declaration($declaration_name,
>>  		       'function',
>>  		       {'function' => $declaration_name,
>>
> 
> 
> --


-- 
~Randy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/