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

Message-ID: <1fd4145f-b9f2-471b-8203-679ecea0d214@infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2026 10:09:56 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Move kernel-doc to tools/docs



On 1/17/26 2:00 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri, 16 Jan 2026 10:48:51 -0700
> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> escreveu:
> 
>> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> writes:
>>
>>> 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.  
>>
>> So is the location of kernel-doc part of our ABI, or an internal detail?
>> :)
> 
> Surely it is not part of ABI: it can be changed whenever we want.
> 
> From my side, I don't mind where it is located: it will take some
> time, but my fingers will end learning its new location/name ;-)
> 
>> I'm not deeply opposed to maintaining the symlink, though I'd rather
>> not.  It won't be for "a couple of releases", though; if the symlink is
>> there, nothing will ever change.
> 
> I see two reasons why having a symlink:
> 
> 1. to avoid the risk of eventually breaking someone's CI or scripts.
>    This is just a preventive measure, as I'm not aware of anyone
>    with such scripts;

I have some such scripts. And it's easy to update them, but I'd like for them
to be compatible both going forward and backward in kernel versions -- without
having to do something like:

	if [ -x scripts/kernel-doc ]; then
		foo
	elif [ -x tools/docs/kernel-doc ]; then
		baz
	else { help; }

I doubt that I am unique/alone in this.

> 2. as you don't want ".py" extension on execs, but PEP8 mandates it, >    together with replacing "-" with "_", you can have a symlink that
>    would make both PEP8 and you happy ;-)
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


-- 
~Randy