linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Move kernel-doc to tools/docs

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: <8af04281-6cde-4903-8b30-3eea213d8ff9@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 09:31:44 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Move kernel-doc to tools/docs



On 1/15/26 7:05 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com> writes:
> 
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> Em Wed, 14 Jan 2026 12:24:31 -0700
>>> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> escreveu:
>>>
>>>> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I do many of these on a regular basis:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ ./scripts/kernel-doc -none -Wall <path_to_source_file>
>>>>>
>>>>> Will I still be able to do that (by using ./tools/doc/kernel-doc ...)?  
>>>>
>>>> Yes.  The tool moves, but its functionality remains unchanged.
>>>
>>> That's actually a good point: should we preserve a link on scripts
>>> pointing to ../tools/doc/kernel-doc? I suspect that a change like
>>> that could break some machinery on several CI tools and scripts
>>> out there. If so, it could be useful to keep a link - at least for
>>> a couple of kernel releases.
>>
>> I think the tool source should be called kernel_doc.py or something, and
>> scripts/kernel-doc should be a script running the former.
> 
> I honestly don't get it - why add an extra indirection step here?

a. compatibility with people in the wild running scripts/kernel-doc

b. adhere to well-known naming conventions.

-- 
~Randy