linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs: Integrate rustdoc into Rust documentation

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: <0d6fc9fb-b875-e3fa-fe89-c40dab63fa91@amd.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Dec 2022 10:30:45 -0600
From:   Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@....com>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     corbet@....net, ojeda@...nel.org, bilbao@...edu,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        konstantin@...uxfoundation.org, Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: Integrate rustdoc into Rust documentation

On 12/2/22 10:27, Miguel Ojeda wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 9:40 PM Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@....com> wrote:
>> I don't understand config sync. Perhaps that, e.g. Documentation/Makefile
>> checks for broken docs, for CONFIG_WARN_MISSING_DOCUMENTS, but we don't
>> do that for rust/Makefile? I'm not sure, but it does sound orthogonal, yes.
> Config sync is what needs to happen to make a bunch of files in
> `include/` up to date with respect to the `.config`. It runs
> automatically for some targets, but not always. For instance, the
> `*docs` targets do not trigger it. So if you enable e.g.
> `CONFIG_WARN_MISSING_DOCUMENTS`, and immediately afterwards run
> `htmldocs`, it will not take it into account.
>
> But don't worry about it: that part of my comment was directed at
> others (e.g. Jon, Akira...) that may know the historical context or
> the reason behind it -- no need to fix it here. I mentioned it here
> since it affects `CONFIG_RUST` if we use it there (in the same way as
> the other `CONFIG_*` used there).


Ah, that makes sense. I appreciate the clarification!


>
> Cheers,
> Miguel


Thanks,
Carlos