linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] docs: kdoc: thrash up dump

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250809174717.45e26abf@foz.lan>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2025 17:47:17 +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 v2 00/12] docs: kdoc: thrash up dump_struct()

Em Thu,  7 Aug 2025 15:16:27 -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.
> 
> Changes in v2:
> 
>  - Reduce the regex backslash removal to keep them in place for
>    {}()[] even when not required.
> 
>  - Restore some of the single-use variables set from regex matches
> 
> Mauro, I have applied your Reviewed-by to everything except patch 10,
> hopefully it is more to your liking now.

All looks good to me now. Thanks!

I sent a suggestion for a further improvement on patch 10/12 together
with my R-B.

> [Helpful hint for the future: if you are going to make a bunch of
> subtle changes to regexes used throughout a patch series, do it at
> the end...you'll go through far less rebasing pain that way when you
> have to change them... :) ]

Sorry for that! Yet, IMO, the code looks a lot nicer with the regex
changes you did over the past version.

Regards,
Mauro