Hi Vegard,
On 12/19/24 11:10 PM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>
> On 20/12/2024 06:02, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 12/19/24 10:37 AM, John Ousterhout wrote:
>>> kernel-doc gets confused by code like the following:
>>>
>>> /**
>>> * define HOMA_MIN_DEFAULT_PORT - The 16-bit port space is divided into
>>> * two nonoverlapping regions. Ports 1-32767 are reserved exclusively
>>> * for well-defined server ports. The remaining ports are used for client
>>> * ports; these are allocated automatically by Homa. Port 0 is reserved.
>>> */
>>> #define HOMA_MIN_DEFAULT_PORT 0x8000
>>>
>>> It seems to use the last "-" on the line (the one in "16-bit") rather
>>> than the first one, so it produces the following false error message:
>>>
>>> homa.h:50: warning: expecting prototype for HOMA_MIN_DEFAULT_PORT -
>>> The 16(). Prototype was for HOMA_MIN_DEFAULT_PORT() instead
>>>
>>> There are similar problems if there is a ":" later on the line.
>>
>>
>> @Vegard, can you look at this, please?
>> I have already looked but didn't arrive at a solution.
>>
>>
>> It appears to be these lines in process_name() that are confusing the function name
>> and following description:
>>
>> # Look for foo() or static void foo() - description; or misspelt
>> # identifier
>> elsif (/^$decl_start$fn_type?(\w+)\s*$parenthesis?\s*$decl_end?$/ ||
>> /^$decl_start$fn_type?(\w+.*)$parenthesis?\s*$decl_end$/) {
>> $identifier = $1;
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Hi,
>
> Is it just a matter of making that capture group less greedy?
Yes, should be.
> diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc
> index f66070176ba31..ba9bc8760ff82 100755
> --- a/scripts/kernel-doc
> +++ b/scripts/kernel-doc
> @@ -2085,7 +2085,7 @@ sub process_name($$) {
> # Look for foo() or static void foo() - description; or misspelt
> # identifier
> elsif (/^$decl_start$fn_type?(\w+)\s*$parenthesis?\s*$decl_end?$/ ||
> - /^$decl_start$fn_type?(\w+.*)$parenthesis?\s*$decl_end$/) {
> + /^$decl_start$fn_type?(\w+.*?)$parenthesis?\s*$decl_end$/) {
> $identifier = $1;
> $decl_type = 'function';
> $identifier =~ s/^define\s+//;
>
> We could also use [^-:]* instead of .* I guess.
Yes, either (both) of those works.
I slightly prefer the alternative since it is stronger in some way (IMO).
Thanks!
--
~Randy
