| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:48:29 +0200
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
To: Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: [PATCH v2 03/33] scripts: kernel-doc: accept blank lines on parameter description
Sphinx is very pedantic with respect to blank lines. Sometimes,
in order to make it to properly handle something, we need to
add a blank line. However, currently, any blank line inside a
kernel-doc comment like:
/*
* @foo: bar
*
* foobar
*
* some description
will be considered as if "foobar" was part of the description.
This patch changes kernel-doc behavior. After it, foobar will
be considered as part of the parameter text. The description
will only be considered as such if it starts with:
zero spaces after asterisk:
*foo
one space after asterisk:
* foo
or have a explicit Description section:
* Description:
Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
---
scripts/kernel-doc | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc
index b019d8db6502..41ed4202f4ad 100755
--- a/scripts/kernel-doc
+++ b/scripts/kernel-doc
@@ -331,13 +331,14 @@ my $lineprefix="";
# Parser states
use constant {
- STATE_NORMAL => 0, # normal code
- STATE_NAME => 1, # looking for function name
- STATE_BODY_MAYBE => 2, # body - or maybe more description
- STATE_BODY => 3, # the body of the comment
- STATE_PROTO => 4, # scanning prototype
- STATE_DOCBLOCK => 5, # documentation block
- STATE_INLINE => 6, # gathering documentation outside main block
+ STATE_NORMAL => 0, # normal code
+ STATE_NAME => 1, # looking for function name
+ STATE_BODY_MAYBE => 2, # body - or maybe more description
+ STATE_BODY => 3, # the body of the comment
+ STATE_BODY_WITH_BLANK_LINE => 4, # the body, which has a blank line
+ STATE_PROTO => 5, # scanning prototype
+ STATE_DOCBLOCK => 6, # documentation block
+ STATE_INLINE => 7, # gathering doc outside main block
};
my $state;
my $in_doc_sect;
@@ -1957,6 +1958,12 @@ sub process_body($$) {
}
}
+ if ($state == STATE_BODY_WITH_BLANK_LINE && /^\s*\*\s?\S/) {
+ dump_section($file, $section, $contents);
+ $section = $section_default;
+ $contents = "";
+ }
+
if (/$doc_sect/i) { # case insensitive for supported section names
$newsection = $1;
$newcontents = $2;
@@ -2010,18 +2017,21 @@ sub process_body($$) {
$state = STATE_PROTO;
$brcount = 0;
} elsif (/$doc_content/) {
- # miguel-style comment kludge, look for blank lines after
- # @parameter line to signify start of description
if ($1 eq "") {
- if ($section =~ m/^@/ || $section eq $section_context) {
+ if ($section eq $section_context) {
dump_section($file, $section, $contents);
$section = $section_default;
$contents = "";
$new_start_line = $.;
+ $state = STATE_BODY;
} else {
+ if ($section ne $section_default) {
+ $state = STATE_BODY_WITH_BLANK_LINE;
+ } else {
+ $state = STATE_BODY;
+ }
$contents .= "\n";
}
- $state = STATE_BODY;
} elsif ($state == STATE_BODY_MAYBE) {
# Continued declaration purpose
chomp($declaration_purpose);
@@ -2173,7 +2183,8 @@ sub process_file($) {
process_normal();
} elsif ($state == STATE_NAME) {
process_name($file, $_);
- } elsif ($state == STATE_BODY || $state == STATE_BODY_MAYBE) {
+ } elsif ($state == STATE_BODY || $state == STATE_BODY_MAYBE ||
+ $state == STATE_BODY_WITH_BLANK_LINE) {
process_body($file, $_);
} elsif ($state == STATE_INLINE) { # scanning for inline parameters
process_inline($file, $_);
--
2.25.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists