linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel-doc: Handle function typedefs without asterisks

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: <20201113223912.GK17076@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 22:39:12 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel-doc: Handle function typedefs without
 asterisks

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 03:21:06PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 15:47:13 +0100
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>
> > 
> > Example of typedef that was not parsed by kernel-doc:
> > 
> >   typedef void (ObjectUnparent)(Object *obj);
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> 
> So as you've undoubtedly noticed, reading those kernel-doc regexes is ... a
> wee bit on the painful side.  Trying to compare two of them in a patch to
> figure out what you have done is even worse.  I suspect we want these
> patches, but can you please supply a changelog that describes the change? 

Better ... can we have a test suite for the regexes and make patches to
them include updates to the test suite?  They have clearly passed the
point of human understanding ;-)