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: <20250709182140.2aab448e@foz.lan>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 18:21:40 +0200
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Akira Yokosawa
 <akiyks@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] [PATCH 00/11] Thrash up the parser/output
 interface

Em Wed, 09 Jul 2025 09:29:28 -0600
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> escreveu:

> 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? :)

I didn't look on it yet. I'll try to look it along the week.

Regards,
Mauro