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]

Message-ID: <20160906073616.409f7be0@lwn.net>
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:36:16 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>,
        Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: make kernel-doc handle varargs properly

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...  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