Am 20.07.2016 um 13:27 schrieb Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>: > 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 ;-) It will never be "perfect" ... as far as I know, Sphinx (docutils) will always report on the block level, not on line level of the rst-origin. The off-by-on could be fixed, I plan to revise the kernel-doc perl script, when we know, what we need for man-pages [1], but I will wait for Jon's and Jani's thoughts about man pages first. [1] http://mid.gmane.org/2CE565E6-19D4-4835-9A32-2FCAE754B357@xxxxxxxxxxx -- Markus -- > > 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
