Em Thu, 15 Oct 2020 09:36:05 -0700 Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:32:07AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > 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 fonts, this would mean that either the doc is outdated, mentioning 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. > > Well, most structs that fscrypt.rst refers to are defined in > include/uapi/linux/fscrypt.h. The whole fscrypt UAPI, including the fields of > these structs, is documented in fscrypt.rst. So I didn't really intend the > fscrypt UAPI structs to have kerneldoc comments, as people are supposed to refer > to the documentation in fscrypt.rst instead. We could have both, but it feels a > bit redundant. Yeah, we do the same on V4L: the uAPI doesn't use kernel-docs. It is documented, instead, at ReST files. In any case, if all structs are documented, automarkup should be using monospaced fonts and be generating cross-references. If not, the regular expressions there may need tweaks ;-) Thanks, Mauro
|