linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/1] Compactly make code examples into literal blocks

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: <20200327173500.GR22483@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 27 Mar 2020 10:35:00 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        peter@...eshed.quignogs.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/1] Compactly make code examples into literal blocks

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 11:11:06AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:50:22 -0700
> Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > Let me just check I understand Jani's proposal here.  You want to change
> > 
> > * Return: Number of pages, or negative errno on failure
> > 
> > to
> > 
> > * Return
> > * ~~~~~~
> > * Number of pages, or negative errno on failure
> > 
> > If so, I oppose such an increase in verbosity and I think most others
> > would too.  If not, please let me know what you're actually proposing ;-)
> 
> I told you there would be resistance :)

Happy to help out!

> I think a reasonable case can be made for using the same documentation
> format throughout our docs, rather than inventing something special for
> kerneldoc comments.  So I personally don't think the above is terrible,
> but as I already noted, I anticipate resistance.
> 
> An alternative would be to make a little sphinx extension; then it would
> read more like:
> 
> 	.. returns:: Number of pages, except when the moon is full
> 
> ...which would still probably not be entirely popular.

I certainly see the value in consistency throughout our documentation.
But I don't think it's a given that the documentation of the return
value is necessarily its own section.  I see kernel-doc as being more
about semantic markup and the rst files as being a presentation markup.

So I'm fine with Return:: introducing a list or Example:: introducing
a code section; these are special purpose keywords.  I'm not a fan of
using raw rst in kernel-doc.  Of course if we can make the kernel-doc
and rst languages the same for the same concepts, that's great.