On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Daniel, hi Mauro, > > Am 19.07.2016 um 17:32 schrieb Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>: > >> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Markus Heiser >>> <markus.heiser@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> Am 19.07.2016 um 13:42 schrieb Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>: >>>> >>>>> Unfortunately warnings generated after parsing in sphinx can end up >>>>> with entirely bogus files and line numbers as sources. Strangely for >>>>> outright errors this is not a problem. Trying to convert warnings to >>>>> errors also doesn't fix it. >>>>> >>>>> The only way to get useful output out of sphinx to be able to root >>>>> cause the error seems to be enabling keep_warnings, which inserts >>>>> a System Message into the actual output. Not pretty at all, but I >>>>> don't really want to fix up core rst/sphinx code, and this gets the job >>>>> done meanwhile. >>>> >>>> Hi Daniel, >>>> >>>> may I misunderstood you. Did you really get more or different warnings >>>> if you include them into the output with "keep_warnings"? >>>> >>>> The documentation says: >>>> >>>> "Regardless of this setting, warnings are always written >>>> to the standard error stream when sphinx-build is run." >>>> >>>> see http://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/stable/config.html#confval-keep_warnings >>>> >>>> Or did you not run "make cleandoc" first? Sphinx caches the doctrees >>>> and reports markup errors only when you rebuild the cache. >>>> The cache is also rebuild if you touch one of the source, e.g. >>>> the drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c or the rst-file where the drm_crtc.c >>>> is referred by a kernel-doc directive .. these dependence sometimes >>>> confuse me .. when I missed log messages, I clean the cache e.g. by >>>> target cleandocs. >>> >>> Yes I'm aware that sphinx it's WARNINGs when doing a partially >>> rebuild, this is something entirely different. I didn't get more or >>> less warnings this way, but keep_warning = True seems to be the only >>> way to get reasonable information about them. Without that I get >>> warnings (for included kernel-doc) where the source file is the .rst >>> file that pulls in the kernel doc, and the line number is entirely >>> bogus (often past the end of the containing .rst). >>> >>> With this I can at least then open the generated .html file, search >>> for the System Message and figure out (by looking at the surrounding >>> context) where the error really is from. >>> >>> Strangely this only happens for WARNING. If I manged the kerneldoc >>> enough to upset sphinx into generating an ERROR, the line numbers and >>> source files are correct. >>> >>> See patch 2/2 in this series for examples of such WARNINGs: Mostly >>> it's unbalanced _ * or `` annotations that confuse sphinx/rst a bit. >>> If you want to play around with the gpu sphinx conversion to reproduce >>> these locall you can grab the drm-intel-nightly branch from >>> >>> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel >>> >>> It already includes Jon's latest docs-next branch. >> >> btw, I couldn't check this since I didn't figure out how to intercept >> the parsed rst tree and view it, but I think what's going on is: >> - The source file for these warnings is .rst file containing the >> kernel-doc directive. This seems to be a bug in sphinx/docutils since >> we never use that file name when appending files at all. >> - The line number looks like it's just counting the inserted >> kernel-doc lines as part of the containing .rst file. At least >> changing the content_offset in nested_parse seems to suggest that this >> is the start line (e.g. adding 10k there results in all bogus WARNING >> line numbers being increased by 10k). And adding more blank lines at >> the beginning of the inserted kernel-doc rst also increases the >> reported lines. But not when inserting blank lines at the end (i.e. it >> seems like it's being reset after each directive again). > > Thanks for the explanation. > >> All that suggest to me this is a sphinx-internal issue, and google >> sugggests there's lots of errata around line reporting. Hence why I >> went with this. But of course a proper fix would be awesome! Just a >> bit outside of what I think I can pull off ... > > It is not really a sphinx-internal issue (rather a drawback of the design). > The state machine needs a system reporter that takes the origin file > and it's line numbers as context. > > I send a fix to Jon: > > http://mid.gmane.org/1469011138-12448-1-git-send-email-markus.heiser@xxxxxxxxxxx > > could you test this patch and send us some feedback / thanks. Yup, seems to work nicely. Thanks a lot for fixing this. Jon, pls drop/revert my hack and take Markus' proper fix instead. > One remark: The line numbers are not "perfect". This is due to the fact, > that the kernel-doc parser could not generate "perfect" line numbers > or all extracted doc-items .. daniel knows this ;) > > If you did not find the cause of a warning in the line number given > by the warning, take a look one line or one block above and/or below, > mostly you will see the cause. Hm, I think I still have a few off-by-one in the kernel-doc line numbers. But tbh with all the intermediate layers I wasn't sure which one is wrong and where it would need to be fixed up. But it seems like for a bunch of cases kernel-doc reports 1 line too much. If someone with more insight into all this would try to improve this, I think it'd be awesome ;-) Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
