linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Proposal to relax warnings of htmldocs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZNzoEVYE1dTOnni4@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 16 Aug 2023 16:15:29 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@....com>
Cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Avadhut Naik <Avadhut.Naik@....com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Proposal to relax warnings of htmldocs

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 10:12:56AM -0500, Carlos Bilbao wrote:
> On 8/16/23 06:01, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > What I'd hope for is build system support to enable W=1
> > compiler/kernel-doc warnings for a subdir with a few lines at most,
> > instead of duplicating and copy-pasting tens of lines from
> > scripts/Makefile.extrawarn like we have to do now.
> 
> That sounds feasible but, well, I actually proposed the opposite approach.
> I wanted to "relax" the warnings (see RFC Subject) rather than making them
> more strict by default.
> 
> My concern is that W=1 (by default) may theoretically result in a clean
> `make htmldocs` but it won't in practice. Not all developers prioritize
> good documentation like the folks from i915, and that may lead to
> unaddressed warnings or worst, less interest in documenting the code. Isn't
> it the case that some of these higher-control warnings don't really have
> much effect in real life? And shoukd W=1 become the default, are we going
> to be able to enforce that level of control?

I wasn't proposing making W=1 builds the default; I was proposing
running kernel-doc -none at all levels.