On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 01:22:37PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > 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. Ok, thanks. Will re-spin without kernel-doc-ification in vsprintf.c > 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. This sounds interesting to work no. At first glance I have no idea how one would go about this. Some form of static analysis would be a good place to start, right? I'd like to allocate some cycles to this, any pointers most appreciated. thanks, Tobin. -- 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
