On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Am 16.01.2018 um 11:22 schrieb Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:04:53 +1100 >>> "Tobin C. Harding" <me@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> Posting as RFC in the hope that someone knows how to massage sphinx >>>> correctly to fix this patch. >>>> >>>> Currently function kernel-doc contains a multi-line code snippet. This >>>> is causing sphinx to emit 5 build warnings >>>> >>>> WARNING: Unexpected indentation. >>>> WARNING: Unexpected indentation. >>>> WARNING: Block quote ends without a blank line; unexpected unindent. >>>> WARNING: Block quote ends without a blank line; unexpected unindent. >>>> WARNING: Inline literal start-string without end-string. >>>> >>>> And the snippet is not rendering correctly in HTML. >>>> >>>> We can stop shpinx complaining by using '::' instead of the currently >>>> used '``' however this still does not render correctly in HTML. The >>>> rendering is [arguably] better but still incorrect. Sphinx renders two >>>> function calls thus: >>>> >>>> :c:func:`rcu_read_lock()`; >>>> >>>> The rest of the snippet does however have correct spacing. >>> >>> The behavior when `` was used is not surprising, that really just does a >>> font change. Once you went with a literal block (with "::") though, the >>> situation changes a bit. That really should work. >>> >>> I looked a bit. This isn't a sphinx (or "shpinx" :) problem, the bug is >>> in kernel-doc. Once we go into the literal mode, it shouldn't be >>> screwing around with the text anymore. Of course, kernel-doc doesn't >>> understand enough RST to know that. I'm a little nervous about trying to >>> teach it more, but maybe we have to do that; we should certainly be able >>> to put code snippets into the docs and have them come through unmolested. >> >> I think eventually the Right Thing would be to move most of kernel-doc's >> mucking of the comments (i.e. highlights) into kernel-doc the Sphinx >> extension. I've toyed with the idea, but it's not as trivial as I would >> like it to be. >> >> Basically it involves flagging all the kernel-doc nodes during the read >> phase, and registering handlers to post process the doctrees. At that >> stage, it's no longer simple regexp replaces, it's replacing doctree >> nodes with ones that have reference nodes within them. It's more >> complicated, > > Hi Jani, my thoughts about: > > 1.) The reST syntax [1] (the parser part) is not *extendable*, we > can only add new roles [2] or directives. Right, but we've *already* extended it using kernel-doc anyway. I'm just suggesting a way to do that *after* all other rst parsing has been done. It's much easier to not confuse the rst parser this way. And we can trivially skip reference nodes or bold text etc. already created by Sphinx. And we can limit this to nodes generated from kernel-doc comments if we want. So for example, we can check if a text node contains, say, "struct foo", check if struct foo documentation exists, and turn that into a reference automatically. In most cases that's the right thing to do. Same with function() stuff. And even when it's actually wrong, it doesn't screw up the rendering like in the example in this thread, but rather just generates a bogus link. BR, Jani. > > 2.) the kernel-doc syntax is weak and ambiguous. This > remains mainly in tagging only with a start-tag or only with a end-tag > e.g: > > * sectioning: "Return:" --> end-tag just ":" > * fields: "@arg1:" --> better > * highlight/ref: start tag [@%$&] / no end tag > > even if I don't know how (1.), if the highlight-syntax becomes a part > of the reST syntax we have to quote [@%$&] elsewhere. This will break > with valid reST documents which is unacceptable. > > Thats why I think we need to pre-parse highlighting in the kernel-doc > Perl script, even if it is a bit hackish (how should it be otherwise, > if the syntax is already hackish). I haven't had the time to implement > such a highlight parser right now, but this would be the first shot of > mine. > > An alternative might be to use roles [2] but this means we have to > break with the the kernel-doc (highlight) syntax which is IMO also > unacceptable ... tricky situation :o > > [1] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html > [2] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/howto/rst-roles.html > > >> but at that stage we can ignore stuff that should stay >> verbatim. I think it's also possible to check that the reference targets >> actually exist. In short, at that phase we have all the knowledge about >> the rst structure, parsed by Sphinx, and we don't have to duplicate that >> knowledge in kernel-doc the perl script. >> >> Note that this has nothing to do with swithing to Python based >> kernel-doc suggested by Markus previously. > > ;) > > -- Markus -- -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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
