linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/18] wait: wait.h: Get rid of a kernel-doc/Sphinx warnings

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: <6C65056C-8A0D-4E0A-9A49-07F10C31955E@darmarit.de>
Date:   Fri, 11 May 2018 09:06:06 +0200
From:   Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/18] wait: wait.h: Get rid of a kernel-doc/Sphinx
 warnings


> Am 10.05.2018 um 18:42 schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>:
> 
> Em Thu, 10 May 2018 09:38:46 -0600
> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> escreveu:
> 
>> On Thu, 10 May 2018 11:21:13 -0300
>> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> The problem with a hint-based mechanism is that it will generate
>>> false hints. If added, we may end by needing to add extra tags to
>>> disable the hints mechanism where it gets wrong, or to periodically
>>> do code changes at kernel-doc comments in order to make the hints
>>> logic happy.
>>> 
>>> So, IMO, we should provide non-hints based mechanism, like forcing the
>>> string that prepends the colon to have a keyword that will make it to
>>> parse the block as literal, where expressions like:
>>> 
>>> 	See the code-block foo:
>>> 	See the following code example:
>>> 	See the following flow diagram:
>>> 	See the following artwork:
>>> 
>>> Is the best alternative to avoid "::", as on the enclosed patch.  
>> 
>> But this, too, is a hint-based mechanism.  Thanks for the patches, I'll
>> keep them around, but I would like an opportunity to try to do better
>> before applying them.  I fear that using magic words in this way will
>> lead to a constant stream of surprises, and I'd like to avoid that if
>> possible...
> 
> Yes, it is still hint-based. A careful selection of the "magic spell
> words/phrases" would minimize the risks of false positives, but it
> could still lead into some unwanted surprises.
> 
> IMO, "::" (or some other character combination that is not used
> elsewhere) is still the safest option.

Right, let's just stay with reST:

 http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html

We already have some special kernel-doc additions e.g. for highlighting,
cross referencing and "DOC:":

 https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/doc-guide/kernel-doc.html#how-to-format-kernel-doc-comments

But we should not break with reST fundamentals.

There are other plain text markups on the market, I would remember Markdown as one.
They all come with markup rules (syntax), to make text parseable. Mauro brought the
example with lists and colons. In ReST, the "::" introduce an indented literal block,
which can be used for code block examples or a small ASCII art.

FWIW: at docutils there is also a (slow ongoing) discussion about reST syntax
alternatives  

 http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/dev/rst/alternatives.html

may the syntax discussion is better placed there?

-- Markus --