linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] scripts/get_feat.pl: allow output the parsed file names

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220326112415.444f34af@coco.lan>
Date:   Sat, 26 Mar 2022 11:24:15 +0100
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] scripts/get_feat.pl: allow output the parsed
 file names

Em Fri, 25 Mar 2022 18:02:09 -0600
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> escreveu:

> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > Btw, maybe we could replace them tree with a Sphinx comment, like:
> >
> > get_feat.pl:
> > 	.. FILE <file_name>
> > kernel-doc:
> > 	.. LINE <line_number>
> > get_abi.pl:
> > 	.. FILE_LINE <file_name>:<line_number>
> >
> > (or something similar)
> >
> > Just let me know what you prefer and I can take care of the needed
> > changes on this patch and, if it is the case, writing the extra patches
> > in order to use the same model on kernel-doc and get_abi.pl.  
> 
> If it were just me, I'd just put "FILE <name>" or something simple.

This won't be a problem here, but I would prefer to use something that
would have zero chances of causing issues at kernel-doc and on other
similar scripts that we might end needing. Using a valid ReST tag like
starting it with ".." should fulfill such goal. 

A side effect is that the output of the script would be a valid ReST file,
either with or without file/line information, which sounds a good idea
on my eyes.

> I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter though; it's not like
> people have to actually look at these things. 

Yes. That's why I ended using #define, the actual meta-tag won't matter
for people.

> I was mostly curious as
> to why you'd done it that way.  I can take the original patches or any
> of the variants above; just let me know which you like best and we'll
> get this done.

Ok. I'll resubmit the patch changing to the comments tag. I'll add
patches also for kernel-doc and get_abi.pl for all of them to use
the same meta-tag.

Thanks,
Mauro