linux-kernel - Re: Kernel docs: muddying the waters a bit

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]

Message-ID: <CAKMK7uE72wFEFCyw1dHbt+f3-ex3fr_9MbjoGfnKFZkd5+9S2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:24:04 +0100
From:	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
To:	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Cc:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Kernel docs: muddying the waters a bit

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 13:27:04 +0100
>>> Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One concern/open I have for pro/cons are the hyperlinks from kerneldoc
>>>> comments. Currently we have the postproc hack, iirc Jani's patches
>>>> generated links native when extracting the kerneldoc. What's the
>>>> solution with spinx?
>>>
>>> So I've been trying to figure out what this refers to.  Is this the
>>> cross-reference links within the document?  When I did my sphinx hack it
>>> used a technique that, shall we say, strongly resembles what Jani's
>>> patches did.  One difference is that Sphinx has the concept of
>>> "functions" built into it, so I use function references for those.
>>
>> That's what I meant. As long as I can type in stuff like func(),
>> &struct and similar and get a link for it automatically (plus anywhere
>> else in the templated stuff for function headers) I'm really happy.
>
> I think that could be made to work in rst just as well as
> asciidoc. Which is to say, kernel-doc may generate broken refs in both,
> since it doesn't know if the link target exists outside of the
> file. Also, in theory, it's possible to generate non-unique targets in
> the end result if there are same named enums, structs, static functions
> etc. but I think that's less of a problem. Asciidoc just ignores these
> issues, I don't know what sphinx does.
>
> I think some of that could be alleviated by making the kernel-doc
> inclusion a directive through a sphinx extension. It could at the very
> least provide informative error messages. But that's distant future.
>
> Worth noting is that, AFAICT, in all of the proposals, including the
> original where kernel-doc produces docbook, this autoreferencing only
> works within parts processed by kernel-doc. Not in the template
> documents themselves. (You can still use the markup's more verbose cross
> referencing keywords.)

It works everywhere, even in the docbook template, as long as you mark
it up correctly. Which in docbook means <function>func</function>.
That's because it's a post-proc path over the entire doc. But then the
entire point here is to move the overview sections all into kerneldoc,
so making the links in the templates more verbose shouldn't be a big
deal.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch