From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5712BC072B5 for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 19:10:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28C2A21848 for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 19:10:08 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 28C2A21848 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59082 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hUFZv-0007X1-Eh for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 24 May 2019 15:10:07 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45513) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hUFYs-00070Q-QQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 May 2019 15:09:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hUFYq-0003qj-PM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 May 2019 15:09:02 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51084) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hUFYq-0003p4-Jg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 May 2019 15:09:00 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5A04308427C; Fri, 24 May 2019 19:08:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-116-14.gru2.redhat.com [10.97.116.14]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6477D913; Fri, 24 May 2019 19:08:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 16:08:50 -0300 From: Eduardo Habkost To: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <20190524190850.GK10764@habkost.net> References: <20190520184108.GA10764@habkost.net> <20190521085350.GF25835@redhat.com> <87pnobrg37.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <7e468375-ca5f-0048-789e-c41d09065eeb@redhat.com> <20190521203712.GO10764@habkost.net> <8a936e5b-9e27-b1a2-dc3c-fa0190d54923@redhat.com> <1351764e-ee0f-c863-de38-010314ca7003@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1351764e-ee0f-c863-de38-010314ca7003@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.40]); Fri, 24 May 2019 19:08:58 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Introducing GSoC project: API Documentation Generation X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Peter Maydell , Daniel =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=2E_Berrang=E9?= , Gabriel Barreto , QEMU Developers , Markus Armbruster , "Emilio G. Cota" , Stefan Hajnoczi , Cleber Rosa , John Snow Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 08:34:23PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 23/05/19 14:20, John Snow wrote: > > OK, if that's where we're at! I just saw the RFC from Peter Maydell and > > assumed we were a little further along the decision making process, but > > maybe not. I'll stay tuned. > > For the decision making, yes; I think there's consensus to use > kerneldoc. For the "debugging and seeing if anything has changed in 2.5 > years", no. > > Testing the patch that Eduardo posted will help Gabriel, Eduardo and > everyone else decide whether to patch kerneldoc or rather change the API > doc comments style. (Personally I am in favor of patching; the > different coding conventions make using vanilla kerneldoc awkward, and > there are several thousands of lines of existing doc comments which > would require a transition.) I'd prefer to fix our doc comments instead of patching kerneldoc, whenever possible. We don't even have a consistent doc comment style in QEMU. -- Eduardo