linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 04/52] scripts: kernel-doc: make it more compatible with Sphinx 3.x

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]

Date:   Thu, 1 Oct 2020 17:02:02 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/52] scripts: kernel-doc: make it more compatible
 with Sphinx 3.x

On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 15:41:00 -0600
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:24:27 +0200
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > With Sphinx 3.x, the ".. c:type:" tag was changed to accept either:
> > 
> > 	.. c:type:: typedef-like declaration
> > 	.. c:type:: name
> > 
> > Using it for other types (including functions) don't work anymore.
> > 
> > So, there are newer tags for macro, enum, struct, union, and others,
> > which doesn't exist on older versions.
> > 
> > Add a check for the Sphinx version and change the produced tags
> > accordingly.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  scripts/kernel-doc | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)  
> 
> So this seems generally good, but I do wonder if we shouldn't just pass
> the sphinx version into kernel-doc as a parameter?  We're already doing a
> version check in the makefile, we should be able to capture the result and
> pass it in, maybe?  

Actually, I'm being slow...we invoke kernel-doc *from within Sphinx*, so
it shouldn't be all that hard to stick the version number onto the command
line.  If we did it that way, it would also be easier to manually test
kernel-doc for various Sphinx versions... ?

jon