linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] kernel-doc: rename the kernel-doc directive 'functions' to 'identifiers'

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: <20191025144802.uixg2crhw6h7gghq@mail.google.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:48:03 +0000
From:   Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kernel-doc: rename the kernel-doc directive
 'functions' to 'identifiers'

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 09:57:48AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 21:17:17 +0800
> > Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The 'functions' directive is not only for functions, but also works for
> >> structs/unions. So the name is misleading. This patch renames it to
> >> 'identifiers', which specific the functions/types to be included in
> >> documentation. We keep the old name as an alias of the new one before
> >> all documentation are updated.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>
> >
> > So I think this is basically OK, but I have one more request...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py b/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py
> >> index 1159405cb920..0689f9c37f1e 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py
> >> +++ b/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py
> >> @@ -59,9 +59,10 @@ class KernelDocDirective(Directive):
> >>      optional_arguments = 4
> >>      option_spec = {
> >>          'doc': directives.unchanged_required,
> >> -        'functions': directives.unchanged,
> >>          'export': directives.unchanged,
> >>          'internal': directives.unchanged,
> >> +        'identifiers': directives.unchanged,
> >> +        'functions': directives.unchanged,  # alias of 'identifiers'
> >>      }
> >>      has_content = False
> >>  
> >> @@ -71,6 +72,7 @@ class KernelDocDirective(Directive):
> >>  
> >>          filename = env.config.kerneldoc_srctree + '/' + self.arguments[0]
> >>          export_file_patterns = []
> >> +        identifiers = None
> >>  
> >>          # Tell sphinx of the dependency
> >>          env.note_dependency(os.path.abspath(filename))
> >> @@ -86,19 +88,22 @@ class KernelDocDirective(Directive):
> >>              export_file_patterns = str(self.options.get('internal')).split()
> >>          elif 'doc' in self.options:
> >>              cmd += ['-function', str(self.options.get('doc'))]
> >> +        elif 'identifiers' in self.options:
> >> +            identifiers = self.options.get('identifiers').split()
> >>          elif 'functions' in self.options:
> >> -            functions = self.options.get('functions').split()
> >> -            if functions:
> >> -                for f in functions:
> >> -                    cmd += ['-function', f]
> >> -            else:
> >> -                cmd += ['-no-doc-sections']
> >> +            identifiers = self.options.get('functions').split()
> >
> > Rather than do this, can you just change the elif line to read:
> >
> >     elif ('identifiers' in self.options) or ('functions' in self.options):
> >
> > ...then leave the rest of the code intact?  It keeps the logic together,
> > and avoids the confusing distinction between identifiers=='' and
> > identifiers==None .
> 
> I think the problem is you still need to distinguish between the two for
> the get('functions') part.
> 
> One option is to rename 'functions' to 'identifiers' in the above block,
> and put something like this above the whole if ladder (untested):
> 
>         # backward compat
>         if 'functions' in self.options:
>             if 'identifiers' in self.options:
>                 kernellog.warn(env.app, "fail")
This will miss the content of 'functions' directive if both exist in
same doc.

>             else:
>                 self.options.set('identifiers', self.options.get('functions'))
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
>
After comparing, I still perfer my original code which is simpler. :)

> 
> -- 
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

-- 
Cheers,
Changbin Du