[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250801082352.4ef1fb12@foz.lan>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 08:23:52 +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] docs: kdoc: thrash up dump_struct()
Em Thu, 31 Jul 2025 18:13:14 -0600
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> escreveu:
> In my ongoing effort to truly understand our new kernel-doc, I continue to
> make changes to improve the code, and to try to make the understanding task
> easier for the next person. These patches focus on dump_struct() in
> particular, which starts out at nearly 300 lines long - to much to fit into
> my little brain anyway. Hopefully the result is easier to manage.
>
> There are no changes in the rendered docs.
>
> (At some point I think this code could benefit from a deeper rework. We
> are essentially making three parsing passes over these declarations -
> dump_struct(), create_parameter_list(), and push_parameter() for structs -
> and it seems like we ought to be able to do better. But that's for another
> day.)
True. I tried not to do too much optimizations during conversion, as it
would make harder to compare with kernel_doc.pl, but yeah, the entire
logic around parsing structs and functions has always been a nightmare.
My understanding is that the original Perl code was written this way to
make easier to handle typedefs and structs the same way. So, common
code was placed at create_parameter_list(). The push_parameter() is
there to have some common code used on several parts of
create_parameter_list() on a single place.
If I were designing it from scratch with no strings attached to Perl,
I would probably create a separate class just to manage struct
parameters - or alternatively, to deal with structs as a hole.
Thanks,
Mauro
Powered by blists - more mailing lists