[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201015163605.GA3336735@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 09:36:05 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 35/80] docs: fs: fscrypt.rst: get rid of :c:type: tags
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:32:07AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> On the other hand, if one finds a valid "struct foo" using normal
> fonts, this would mean that either the doc is outdated, mentioning
> an struct that were removed/renamed or that there's a missing
> kernel-doc markup.
>
> In any case, the fix is to simply fix the kernel-doc markup for
> struct foo.
>
> I guess in the future automarkup.py could issue a warning in
> order to warn about missing cross-references, perhaps when
> W=1 or W=2 is used.
Well, most structs that fscrypt.rst refers to are defined in
include/uapi/linux/fscrypt.h. The whole fscrypt UAPI, including the fields of
these structs, is documented in fscrypt.rst. So I didn't really intend the
fscrypt UAPI structs to have kerneldoc comments, as people are supposed to refer
to the documentation in fscrypt.rst instead. We could have both, but it feels a
bit redundant.
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists