netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: reformat kdoc return statements

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: <87v7wjffo6.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 07:42:49 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "Russell King (Oracle)"
 <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, pablo@...filter.org, richardcochran@...il.com,
 johannes@...solutions.net, loic.poulain@...aro.org,
 ryazanov.s.a@...il.com, dsahern@...nel.org, wintera@...ux.ibm.com,
 hawk@...nel.org, ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org, jhs@...atatu.com,
 jiri@...nulli.us, ecree.xilinx@...il.com, przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com,
 netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: reformat kdoc return statements

Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:

> On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 16:23:59 +0000 Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 08:36:12AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> > kernel-doc -Wall warns about missing Return: statement for non-void
>> > functions. We have a number of kdocs in our headers which are missing
>> > the colon, IOW they use
>> >  * Return some value
>> > or
>> >  * Returns some value
>> > 
>> > Having the colon makes some sense, it should help kdoc parser avoid
>> > false positives. So add them. This is mostly done with a sed script,
>> > and removing the unnecessary cases (mostly the comments which aren't
>> > kdoc).  
>> 
>> I wonder about this... I suspect it's going to be a constant battle to
>> ensure that docs use Return: or Returns: because it's not "natural"
>> when writing documentation.
>> 
>> Maybe the tooling should accept a sentence starting "Return(s?)" and
>> convert it to "Return(s):" in generated documentation?
>
> I missed this merge window, so we have time, let's ask Jon.
>
> Jon, do you have a preference on making the kernel-doc formatting
> accept "* Return" without the colon? vs fixing all the mis-formatting?
> Looks like we have roughly 100 of those in networking headers 
> (just counting those under include/).

I guess my preference would be to fix the comments and keep the tighter
rule for the format.  It's not something I feel hugely strongly about,
though, so I don't think I would try to block an attempt to go the other
way.

Thanks,

jon