linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] Documentation/Sphinx

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: <CAKMK7uGd=oMO0Da-67r5G7r4bbS2PpXO2qwzK=TozF2Vp=Sc_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 31 May 2016 10:07:30 +0200
From:	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
To:	Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de>
Cc:	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
	Dan Allen <dan@...ndevise.io>,
	Russel Winder <russel@...der.org.uk>,
	Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Documentation/Sphinx

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Markus Heiser
<markus.heiser@...marit.de> wrote:
>>>> I find it totally unacceptable to require explicitly marking kernel-doc
>>>> comments or source files as being reStructuredText.
>>>> Note that it's all opt-in already. If you add a .rst file that includes
>>>> kernel-doc via the kernel-doc extension, you better make sure the
>>>> comments parse as reStructuredText and render nicely. I'm willing to do
>>>> much of the job for all the things that I care about.
>>>
>>> We have a different POV ... I try to build up a documentation project,
>>> which could use all given kernel-doc markups without any change, where
>>> reST is an "addition". Your approach is to fix kernel-doc comments
>>> if they are referred by a kernl-doc directive in a .rst document.
>>> There is nothing wrong about your approach, but I try to build
>>> a whole source code documentation like the one I started here:
>>> http://return42.github.io/sphkerneldoc/linux_src_doc/index.html
>>
>> That looks nice, but I'll argue it would not be much worse even if you
>> assumed it's all rst.
>
> A superficial look on the HTML output may give the impression. But in
> the log you will find tons of errors and warnings. My experience is,
> that authors will not consult logs if there are tons of errors from the
> beginning, which carries a decrease in quality. IMO not a good starting
> point.

0-day builds all docs, and checks for new warnings. Even in today's
gpu.tmpl build there's a massive pile of warnings, so yes developers
don't look. But 0-day does, and then developers look at the nice mails
from 0-day. It mostly works to keep out new fail I think.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch