[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250711001307.5b5279ce@foz.lan>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 00:13:07 +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 09/12] docs: kdoc: straighten up dump_declaration()
Em Thu, 10 Jul 2025 07:27:07 -0600
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> escreveu:
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> writes:
>
> > Em Wed, 2 Jul 2025 16:35:21 -0600
> > Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> escreveu:
> >
> >> Get rid of the excess "return" statements in dump_declaration(), along with
> >> a line of never-executed dead code.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
> >> ---
> >> scripts/lib/kdoc/kdoc_parser.py | 15 +++++----------
> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/scripts/lib/kdoc/kdoc_parser.py b/scripts/lib/kdoc/kdoc_parser.py
> >> index 6e35e508608b..7191fa94e17a 100644
> >> --- a/scripts/lib/kdoc/kdoc_parser.py
> >> +++ b/scripts/lib/kdoc/kdoc_parser.py
> >> @@ -878,18 +878,13 @@ class KernelDoc:
> >>
> >> if self.entry.decl_type == "enum":
> >> self.dump_enum(ln, prototype)
> >> - return
> >> -
> >> - if self.entry.decl_type == "typedef":
> >> + elif self.entry.decl_type == "typedef":
> >> self.dump_typedef(ln, prototype)
> >> - return
> >> -
> >> - if self.entry.decl_type in ["union", "struct"]:
> >> + elif self.entry.decl_type in ["union", "struct"]:
> >> self.dump_struct(ln, prototype)
> >> - return
> >> -
> >
> > The above LGTM.
> >
> >> - self.output_declaration(self.entry.decl_type, prototype,
> >> - entry=self.entry)
> >> + else:
> >> + # This would be a bug
> >> + self.emit_message(ln, f'Unknown declaration type: {self.entry.decl_type}')
> >
> > Hmm... Are you sure about that? If I'm not mistaken, this was used for
> > other types of arguments, like DOC: tags.
>
> DOC tags are handled in a different path entirely. I did ensure that
> the code in question was never executed ... but then left the message in
> place just in case.
OK.
If the output didn't change neither for ReST nor for man, that's fine
for me. Besides being a port from Perl, I'm almost sure I hit this
code before during the conversion, but it it is now a dead code,
your approach is better ;-)
While I didn't test, I trust you. So feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Thanks,
Mauro
Powered by blists - more mailing lists