On 1/4/21 1:02 am, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 29/3/21 7:26 pm, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >>> Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> Currently, kernel-doc start parsing the comment as a kernel-doc comment if >>>> it starts with '/**', but does not take into account if the content inside >>>> the comment too, adheres with the expected format. >>>> This results in unexpected and unclear warnings for the user. >>>> >>>> E.g., running scripts/kernel-doc -none mm/memcontrol.c emits: >>>> "mm/memcontrol.c:961: warning: expecting prototype for do not fallback to current(). Prototype was for get_mem_cgroup_from_current() instead" >>>> >>>> Here kernel-doc parses the corresponding comment as a kernel-doc comment >>>> and expects prototype for it in the next lines, and as a result causing >>>> this warning. >>>> >>>> Provide a clearer warning message to the users regarding the same, if the >>>> content inside the comment does not follow the kernel-doc expected format. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> scripts/kernel-doc | 17 +++++++++++++---- >>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> This is definitely a capability we want, but I really don't think that >>> we can turn it on by default - for now. Experience shows that if you >>> create a blizzard of warnings, nobody sees any of them. How many >>> warnings does this add to a full docs build? >>> >> >> Hi Jonathan, here's the diff I have created for the warnings before >> and after the changes: >> https://github.com/AdityaSrivast/kernel-tasks/blob/master/random/kernel-doc/kernel_doc_comment_syntax.txt >> >> Around ~1320 new warnings of this type are added to the kernel tree, >> and around ~1580 warnings are removed. > > So I finally got around to looking at this again... How did you > generate that file? > I ran scripts/kernel-doc -none on all the files in the kernel tree before and after appying the changes, and then generated their diff to find the warnings removed and added. > I tried applying the patch and doing a normal full htmldocs build and > got all of four warnings: > > ./include/linux/seqlock.h:829: warning: This comment starts with '/**', but isn't a kernel-doc comment. Refer Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst > * DEFINE_SEQLOCK(sl) - Define a statically allocated seqlock_t > ./fs/jbd2/journal.c:1391: warning: This comment starts with '/**', but isn't a kernel-doc comment. Refer Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst > * journal_t * jbd2_journal_init_dev() - creates and initialises a journal structure > ./fs/jbd2/journal.c:1422: warning: This comment starts with '/**', but isn't a kernel-doc comment. Refer Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst > * journal_t * jbd2_journal_init_inode () - creates a journal which maps to a inode. > ./include/linux/dcache.h:309: warning: This comment starts with '/**', but isn't a kernel-doc comment. Refer Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst > * dget, dget_dlock - get a reference to a dentry > I think there should be more warnings. For e.g., running kernel-doc -none ./drivers/usb/mtu3/mtu3.h gives these warnings: ./drivers/usb/mtu3/mtu3.h:75: warning: This comment starts with '/**', but isn't a kernel-doc comment. Refer Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst ./drivers/usb/mtu3/mtu3.h:86: warning: This comment starts with '/**', but isn't a kernel-doc comment. Refer Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst ./drivers/usb/mtu3/mtu3.h:143: warning: This comment starts with '/**', but isn't a kernel-doc comment. Refer Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst > Two observations: > > - This is not an awful lot of warnings - not the blizzard I had > feared. At this level, I think we can just merge the patch and > then, hopefully, fix those cases. > > - All of the warned-about places are *attempts* to write real kerneldoc > comments, they just got the syntax wrong in one way or another. It's > probably not worth the effort to try to detect this case - the > warning is enough to draw attention to the comment in question. > I agree. Above are some of the cases which are not getting detected by this patch. This may be so as I am only allowing the function syntax as mentioned in the rst file, i.e., "^\s*\*\s*([\w\s]+?)(\(\))?\s*([-:].*)?$" or ("* foo(\(\))? - description") I probably need to check for pointers as well and other similar case(s). Maybe I should design a separate check for functions than assigning $decl_type = 'function' in the first check. What do you think? Thanks Aditya
