On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:41:26AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 13:28:54 +0200 > Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > IMHO the real problem is kernel-doc doing too much preprocessing on the > > input, preventing us from doing what would be the sensible thing in > > rst. The more we try to fix the problem by adding more kernel-doc > > processing, the further we dig ourselves into this hole. > > > > If kernel-doc didn't have its own notion of section headers, such as > > "example:", we wouldn't have this problem to begin with. We could just > > use the usual rst construct; "example::" followed by an indented block. > > > > I'm not going to stand in the way of the patch, but I'm telling you, > > this is going to get harder, not easier, on this path. > > I agree with you in principle. The problem, of course, is that this is a > legacy gift from before the RST days and it will be hard to change. > > A quick grep shows that the pattern: > > * Example: > > appears nearly 100 times in current kernels. It is not inconceivable to > make a push to get rid of all of those, turning them into ordinary RST > syntax - especially since not all of those are actually kerneldoc > comments. > > The same quick grep says that "returns?:" appears about 10,000 times. > *That* will be painful to change, and I can only imagine that some > resistance would have to be overcome at some point. > > So what do folks think we should do? :) Let me just check I understand Jani's proposal here. You want to change * Return: Number of pages, or negative errno on failure to * Return * ~~~~~~ * Number of pages, or negative errno on failure If so, I oppose such an increase in verbosity and I think most others would too. If not, please let me know what you're actually proposing ;-)
