On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 05:02:07PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:56:33AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Hi Johan, > > > > Em Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:51:35 +0200 > > Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:04:10PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > When parsing via script, it is important to know if the script > > > > should consider a description as a literal block that should > > > > be displayed as-is, or if the description can be considered > > > > as a normal text. > > > > > > > > Change descriptions to ensure that the preceding line of a table > > > > ends with a colon. That makes easy to identify the need of a > > > > literal block. > > > > > > In the cover letter you say that the first four patches of this series, > > > including this one, "fix some ABI descriptions that are violating the > > > syntax described at Documentation/ABI/README". This seems a bit harsh, > > > given that it's you that is now *introducing* a new syntax requirement > > > to assist your script. > > > > Yeah, what's there at the cover letter doesn't apply to this specific > > patch. The thing is that I wrote this series a lot of time ago (2016/17). Got it, thanks. [...] > > In the specific case of this patch, the ":" there actually makes sense > > for someone that it is reading it as a text file, and it is an easy > > hack to make it parse better. Human readers probably depend on more on tabulation and white space. When the preceding description wasn't using a colon to begin with (and you just replace s/\./:/) it can even look weird, but no big deal. > > > Specifically, this new requirement isn't documented anywhere AFAICT, so > > > how will anyone adding new ABI descriptions learn about it? > > > > Yeah, either that or provide an alternative to "Description" tag, to be > > used with more complex ABI descriptions. > > > > One of the things that occurred to me, back on 2017, is that we should > > have a way to to specify that an specific ABI description would have > > a rich format. Something like: [...] > I don't know when "Description" and "RST-Description" would be used. > Why not just parse "Description" like rst text and if things are "messy" > we fix them up as found, like you did with the ":" here? It doesn't > have to be complex, we can always fix them up after-the-fact if new > stuff gets added that doesn't quite parse properly. > > Just like we do for most kernel-doc formatting :) But kernel-doc has a documented format, which was sort of the point I was trying to make. If the new get_abi.pl scripts expects a colon I think it should be mentioned somewhere (e.g. Documentation/ABI/README). Grepping for attribute entries in linux-next still reveals a number descriptions that still lack that colon and use varying formatting. More are bound to be added later, but perhaps that's ok depending on what you're aiming at here. Johan
