linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/12] [PATCH 00/11] Thrash up the parser/output interface

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: <87cya92xif.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 09:29:28 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
 <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>, Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] [PATCH 00/11] Thrash up the parser/output interface

Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> writes:

> [I'll slow down soon, honest - real work is piling up...]
>
> The kerneldoc parsing phase gathers all of the information about the
> declarations of interest, then passes it through to the output phase as a
> dict that is an unstructured blob of information; this organization has its
> origins in the Perl version of the program.  It results in an interface
> that is difficult to reason about, dozen-parameter function calls, and
> other ills.
>
> Introduce a new class (KdocItem) to carry this information between the
> parser and the output modules, and, step by step, modify the system to use
> this class in a more structured way.  This could be taken further by
> creating a subclass of KdocItem for each declaration type (function,
> struct, ...), but that is probably more structure than we need.
>
> As a final step, add some structure for the accumulation of the output
> text.
>
> The result is (I hope) clearer code, the removal of a bunch of boilerplate,
> and no changes to the generated output.

Has anybody else had a chance to look at this?  Or should I assume it's
perfect? :)

Thanks,

jon