[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wmdnm0kh.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:59:10 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/kernel-doc: remove an obscure logic from
kernel-doc
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> writes:
> With regards to the Python transition, since our Makefile allows
> switching to a different script since ever[1], I'm playing with
> the idea of sending a patch series with:
>
> Patch 1:
> - drops Sphinx version check from both kerneldoc
> (-sphinx-version parameter) and the corresponding Sphinx extension;
>
> patch 2:
> - renames kerneldoc to kerneldoc.pl
> - creates a symlink:
> kerneldoc.pl -> kerneldoc
>
> patch 3:
> - adds kerneldoc.py:
>
> patch 4:
> - add info messages on both versions related to the transition,
> and instructions about using KERNELDOC=<script> makefile and ask
> people to report eventual regressions with new script.
>
> patch 5:
> - change kerneldoc symlink to point to kerneldoc.py
>
> We can then keep both for maybe one Kernel cycle and see how it goes,
> stop accepting patches to the Perl version, in favor of doing the needed
> changes at the Python one.
>
> If everything goes well, we can remove the venerable Perl version on the
> upcoming merge window, and change the Sphinx extension to use the Python
> classes directly instead of running an external executable code.
>
> What do you think?
Seems like a fine plan in general. I wonder if we might want to keep
the old kernel-doc a bit longer just in case, but we can decide that as
we go.
> I'm in doubt if I should split the Kernel classes for the Python version
> into a scripts/lib/kdoc directory on this series or doing such change
> only after we drop the Perl version.
>
> Keeping it on a single file helps to do more complex code adjustments
> on a single place, specially if we end renaming/shifting stuff[2].
Do whatever makes it easiest for you at this point, I'd say.
> On a separate but related issue, perhaps we should start talking about
> coding style. We don't have anything defined at the Kernel, and
> different scripts follow different conventions (or most likely
> don't follow any convention at all). We should probably think having
> something defined in the future.
I've generally tried to stick to something that looks as close to the C
coding style as possible. Formalizing that might not be a bad idea at
all.
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists