Em Wed, 14 Oct 2020 14:59:54 -0700 Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 08:59:07AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > [PATCH v6.1 35/80] docs: fs: fscrypt.rst: get rid of :c:type: tags > > > > The :c:type: tag has problems with Sphinx 3.x, as structs > > there should be declared with c:struct. > > > > So, remove them, relying at automarkup.py extension to > > convert them into cross-references. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> > > "relying at" => "relying on". > > Otherwise looks fine, you can add: > > Reviewed-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> Thank you for reviewing it! > I do still wonder about your comment though: > > > It should be said that, currently, if there's no documentation for "foo", > > automarkup will just keep using the regular text font, keeping the text > > untouched. > > That will apply to most (maybe all) of the structures mentioned in this file. > I expected that if the documentation system now automatically recognizes > 'struct foo', then it would render it in code font even when 'struct foo' isn't > documented. Any particular reason why that isn't the case? Not like I care > much myself, but it's a bit unexpected and it means this change actually makes > the rendered documentation look worse... Yeah, I agree that using monospaced fonts on this case too would be nice. The C domain actually uses italic monospaced fonts for broken XREFs. I suspect that changing this at automarkup.py would be simple, but not sure if it would be safe. Jon can tell more about that, as he's the author of automarkup, but I suspect that the reason for the current behavior is to avoid false-positives. I mean, if "struct foo" symbol doesn't exist at the C domain, this might mean that the parser is doing something wrong. So, a more conservative approach is to keep the string as-is. On the other hand, if one finds a valid "struct foo" using normal fonts, this would mean that either the doc is outdated, mentioning an struct that were removed/renamed or that there's a missing kernel-doc markup. In any case, the fix is to simply fix the kernel-doc markup for struct foo. I guess in the future automarkup.py could issue a warning in order to warn about missing cross-references, perhaps when W=1 or W=2 is used. Thanks, Mauro
