[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190620120150.GH6241@localhost>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 14:01:50 +0200
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Stefan Achatz <erazor_de@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] ABI: better identificate tables
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 05:02:07PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:56:33AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Hi Johan,
> >
> > Em Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:51:35 +0200
> > Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> escreveu:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:04:10PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > > From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
> > > >
> > > > When parsing via script, it is important to know if the script
> > > > should consider a description as a literal block that should
> > > > be displayed as-is, or if the description can be considered
> > > > as a normal text.
> > > >
> > > > Change descriptions to ensure that the preceding line of a table
> > > > ends with a colon. That makes easy to identify the need of a
> > > > literal block.
> > >
> > > In the cover letter you say that the first four patches of this series,
> > > including this one, "fix some ABI descriptions that are violating the
> > > syntax described at Documentation/ABI/README". This seems a bit harsh,
> > > given that it's you that is now *introducing* a new syntax requirement
> > > to assist your script.
> >
> > Yeah, what's there at the cover letter doesn't apply to this specific
> > patch. The thing is that I wrote this series a lot of time ago (2016/17).
Got it, thanks.
[...]
> > In the specific case of this patch, the ":" there actually makes sense
> > for someone that it is reading it as a text file, and it is an easy
> > hack to make it parse better.
Human readers probably depend on more on tabulation and white space.
When the preceding description wasn't using a colon to begin with (and
you just replace s/\./:/) it can even look weird, but no big deal.
> > > Specifically, this new requirement isn't documented anywhere AFAICT, so
> > > how will anyone adding new ABI descriptions learn about it?
> >
> > Yeah, either that or provide an alternative to "Description" tag, to be
> > used with more complex ABI descriptions.
> >
> > One of the things that occurred to me, back on 2017, is that we should
> > have a way to to specify that an specific ABI description would have
> > a rich format. Something like:
[...]
> I don't know when "Description" and "RST-Description" would be used.
> Why not just parse "Description" like rst text and if things are "messy"
> we fix them up as found, like you did with the ":" here? It doesn't
> have to be complex, we can always fix them up after-the-fact if new
> stuff gets added that doesn't quite parse properly.
>
> Just like we do for most kernel-doc formatting :)
But kernel-doc has a documented format, which was sort of the point I
was trying to make. If the new get_abi.pl scripts expects a colon I
think it should be mentioned somewhere (e.g. Documentation/ABI/README).
Grepping for attribute entries in linux-next still reveals a number
descriptions that still lack that colon and use varying formatting. More
are bound to be added later, but perhaps that's ok depending on what
you're aiming at here.
Johan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists