linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation: Document each netlink family

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: <ZbkebMW+xLqNhsoB@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:06:04 -0800
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>, kuba@...nel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation: Document each netlink family

On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 07:22:08AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 21 Nov 2023, Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org> wrote:
> >> This is a simple script that parses the Netlink YAML spec files
> >> (Documentation/netlink/specs/), and generates RST files to be rendered
> >> in the Network -> Netlink Specification documentation page.
> >
> > First of all, my boilerplate complaint: All extra processing for Sphinx
> > should really be done using Sphinx extensions instead of adding Makefile
> > hacks. I don't think it's sustainable to keep adding this stuff. We
> > chose Sphinx because it is extensible, and to avoid the Rube Goldberg
> > machine that the previous documentation build system was.
> 
> So I feel like we've (me included) have kind of sent Breno around in
> circles on this one.  This *was* implemented as an extension once:
> 
>   https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231103135622.250314-1-leitao@debian.org/
> 
> At that time it seemed too complex, and I thought that an external
> script would lead to a simpler implementation overall.  Perhaps I was
> wrong.

I think you are correct. I personally _think_ that the external script
is better, mainly because it is self contained, thus, easier to
maintain.