linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/6] kernel-doc: replace kernel-doc perl parser with a pure python one (WIP)

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]

Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:54:56 +0100
From:   Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de>
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        "linux-doc \@ vger . kernel . org List" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel \@ vger . kernel . org List" 
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/6] kernel-doc: replace kernel-doc perl parser with a pure python one (WIP)


Am 25.01.2017 um 21:59 schrieb Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>:

>> But the problem I see here is, that the perl script generates a
>> reST output which I can't use. As an example we can take a look at
>> the man-page builder I shipped in the series.
> 
> Sorry, I still don't understand *why* you can't use the same rst. Your
> explanation seems to relate to man pages, but man pages come
> *afterwards*, and are a separate improvement. I know you talk about lack
> of proper structure and all that, but *why* can it strictly not be used,
> if the *current* rst clearly can be used?

"afterwards" is the word, that lets me slowly realize, that I have to
stop solving the world's problems with one patch. Now I guess how my
next patch series has to look like. Thanks! ... for being patient with
me.

Before I start, I want to hear your thoughts about the parsing
aspect ...

>>> That said, perhaps having an elegant parser (perhaps based on a compiler
>>> plugin) is incompatible with the idea of making it a bug-for-bug drop-in
>>> replacement of the old one, and it's something we need to think about.

Did you have any suggestions?

-- Markus --