On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 13:06 -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > Well ... my sense is that lib/vsprintf.c should remain the canonical > documentation. I agree. > Anyone working on the code has the docs all together in > one file. If it helps the .rst file to reformat the comments into > kernel-doc, that's fine, but it shouldn't reduce the detail that is > present, IMO. Now, expanding on it in printk-formats.rst is certainly > a great idea, but I don't think it should come at the expense of > someone just reading through vsprintf.c. That said, I can certainly > see that redundancy is annoying, and it's possible for > printk-formats.rst and vsprintf.c get get out of sync, but that > doesn't seem to be a new problem. Nor has it been a real problem in practice. There is a comment in vsprintf.c that tells people to update the doc. * ** Please update also Documentation/printk-formats.txt when making changes ** > > I'd be curious to see what Jon or Joe think about this. > > (Perhaps the best first step would be to leave vsprintf.c as-is > without kernel-doc-ification?) I think adding kernel-doc to vsprintf.c is unnecessary. Outside of the documentation, what could be useful is for someone to add a tool to verify %p<foo> extension to the typeof address actually passed as an argument. -- 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
