On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 07:48:26AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > 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". No, people won't set it. > > > 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. Can we have a way to enable kernel-doc coverage on a per-directory basis? It will stop us from regressing. I got mm/ down to zero warnings, and that promptly regressed. If we force kernel-doc to run on files under mm/, developers will notice breakage quickly.
