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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87r38vx3fe.fsf@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 07 Sep 2016 16:08:53 +0300
From:   Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
To:     Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     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

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016, Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de> wrote:
> 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?

Sparse contains a C preprocessor.

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

See https://lwn.net/Articles/689907/.


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center