[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180510063805.1859b1aa@vento.lan>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 06:38:05 -0300
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/18] wait: wait.h: Get rid of a kernel-doc/Sphinx
warnings
Em Thu, 10 May 2018 01:38:38 -0700
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> escreveu:
> > * Use either while holding wait_queue_head::lock or when used for wakeups
> > - * with an extra smp_mb() like:
> > + * with an extra smp_mb() like::
>
> Independent of any philosophical discussion not allowing a setence to
> end with a single ':' is completely idiotic. Please fix the tooling
> instead to allow it, as it is very important for being able to just
> write understandable comments.
Patches are welcome, although I don't see any easy way to solve it.
In English, the common case is that a line with ends with a colon is
followed by a list. E. g.
foo:
- bar1;
- bar2.
However, in this specific case, it is followed by an ascii artwork.
The double colon is a notation that tells Sphinx to not parse the
lines at the next block, placing the contents of it inside a literal
block. It is used also when the next lines contain a code example,
in order to avoid parsing things like @, () and * inside the code
block.
The kernel-doc tool might eventually have some parsing logic that
would replace something to a '::' before sending it to Sphinx.
It could, for example, have a "hint" regex that would expect a
certain sequence of characters to be at the last line, like:
s/ascii\s+artwork.*:/ascii artwork.*::/
or
s/code\s+block.*:/code block.*::/
Then, change the kernel-doc comment to use it, like:
* with an extra smp_mb() like shown at the following ascii artwork:
but IMHO, this is a lot worse than "::": it would be more intrusive
and more error-prune.
Thanks,
Mauro
Powered by blists - more mailing lists