linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] linux/pipe_fs_i.h: fix kernel-doc warnings after @wait was split

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 07:59:41 -0700
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux/pipe_fs_i.h: fix kernel-doc warnings after @wait
 was split

On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:57:39 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> I've considered adding some doc building to my basic tests, but it is
> (a) somewhat slow and (b) has always been very noisy.
> 
> And that (b) is why I really don't do it. The reason I require the
> basic build to be warning-free is that because that way any new
> warnings stand out. But that's just not the case for docs.
> 
> What do you use to notice new errors? Or is there some trick to make
> it less noisy?

I save the output and do a diff ... not the greatest workflow.

The docs-build warnings are a huge problem, which is why getting rid of
them is at the top of my priority list.  It's a fairly lonely game of
whack-a-mole at the moment, though.

Once we're there, it should be pretty easy to add a quick check that
doesn't actually build the docs and, thus, isn't so painfully slow.  But
that won't really be useful until we can get the build clean.

jon