On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 2:14 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 10:49:37AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > kernel-doc checks were initially enabled only for builds which had extra > > > warnings enabled. We have now eliminated enough kernel-doc warnings that > > > we can enable kernel-doc checking by default. This comes at a slight > > > cost; for an allmodconfig build, make -j8 fs/ timings on my laptop > > > increase by less than 5%: Adding CONFIG_KDOC_CHECK or something will allow people to avoid 5% build-time cost. You can set "default y" or "default COMPILE_TEST". > > > > So I'm not opposed to this and can carry it in docs-next (after the > > merge window, though, for something like this). But, it seems to me, we > > should copy Masahiro (added) on a build patch of this type. > > Thanks! I've got a small collection of doc fixup patches redy to go; > I'm going to spray them at maintainers and see what lands in this > merge window. I'm focusing on mm/ and fs/ since I know those areas > better than others. net/ is in good shape; only 25 lines of errors > (21 of them in ceph). Any single instance of warning may result in a rejection by Linus. Anyway, we will see. > I would suggest that we still have quite a lot of kernel-doc which is > not incorporated into .rst files, which seems like a shame. Does anyone > have time to write a script that finds every file with kernel-doc in > it, then finds which of those files do not have ".. kernel-doc::" > lines in Documentation/ ? -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
