[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <C6491E01-3FC2-4AC4-8190-7B17CFAC01AD@darmarit.de>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:35:25 +0200
From: Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>, ast@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-man@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next] bpf: document eBPF helpers and add a script to
generate man page
> Am 09.04.2018 um 11:25 schrieb Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>:
>
> On 04/09/2018 11:21 AM, Markus Heiser wrote:
> [...]
>> Do we really need another kernel-doc parser?
>>
>> ./scripts/kernel-doc include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>>
>> should already do the job (producing .rst). For more infos, take a look at
>
> This has absolutely zero to do with kernel-doc, but rather producing
> a description of BPF helper function that are later assembled into an
> actual man-page that BPF program developers (user space) can use.
May I completely misunderstood you, so correct my if I'am wrong:
- ./scripts/bpf_helpers_doc.py : produces reST markup from C-comments
- ./scripts/kerne-doc : produces reST markup from C-comments
IMO: both are doing the same job, so why not using kernel-doc?
-- Markus --
Powered by blists - more mailing lists