Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Jon/Greg, > > That's the second version of my RFC patches meant to modenize the ABI > parser that I wrote in Perl. I have a couple of minor comments on the individual patches, but overall I do like this direction. It would be nice, though, if the code were a bit more extensively commented. Parts of it get into the "twistly maze of regexes" mode that can be awfully hard to follow. > On this series we have: > > patches 1 to 11: several bug fixes addressing issues at ABI symbols; 1-3 aren't needed - it seems you already upstreamed #2? For the rest, is there any reason to not apply them right away? They just seem like worthwhile fixes. > patch 12: a fix for scripts/documentation-file-ref-check > patches 13-15: create new script with rest and search logic and > minimally integrate with kernel_abi Sphinx extension(phase 1); > patches 16-19: implement phase 2: class integration (phase 2); > patch 20: fix a bug at kernel_abi: the way it splits lines is buggy; > patches 21-24: rewrite kernel_abi logic to make it simpler and more > robust; > patches 25-27: add cross-reference support at automarkup; > patches 28-36: several ABI cleanups to cope with the improvements; > patch 37: implement undefined command; > patch 38: get rid of the old Perl script. > > To make it easier to review/apply, I may end breaking the next version > on a couple of different patchsets. Still it would be nice to have more > people testing it and providing some feedback. I've looked over everything, though with limited depth. My testing hasn't turned up any problems. I've only tested with current Sphinx, have you tried this with the more ancient versions we support? [It's probably time to raise our minimum version again, especially now that current Sphinx has better performance.] I don't see a whole lot of reasons not to apply this set shortly after the merge window; anybody disagree? Thanks, jon
