On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:43:18 +0300 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > As far as I can tell, the handling of "..." arguments has never worked > > right, so any documentation provided was ignored in favor of "variable > > arguments." This makes kernel-doc handle "@...:" as documented. It does > > *not* fix spots in kerneldoc comments that don't follow that convention, > > but they are no more broken than before. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > scripts/kernel-doc | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc > > index c681e8f0ecc2..e6c52ab938fd 100755 > > --- a/scripts/kernel-doc > > +++ b/scripts/kernel-doc > > @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ my $doc_com_body = '\s*\* ?'; > > my $doc_decl = $doc_com . '(\w+)'; > > # @params and a strictly limited set of supported section names > > my $doc_sect = $doc_com . > > - '\s*(\@\w+|description|context|returns?|notes?|examples?)\s*:(.*)'; > > + '\s*(\@[.\w]+|description|context|returns?|notes?|examples?)\s*:(.*)'; > > So this will now accept "@foo.bar.baz:" too, right? Should it be > something like this instead? > > '\s*(\@\w+|\@\.\.\.|description|context|returns?|notes?|examples?)\s*:(.*)'; That works too. I had a sort of vision of catching the "args..." notation that a lot of kerneldoc comments use and doing the right thing, but ran out of patience before getting it to work. There are times when I find Markus's python kernel-doc replacement tempting... Maybe I'll beat my head against that wall one more time when I get a chance and, failing that, just use the above. Thanks, jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
