Re: [RFC Draft PATCH net-next 0/1] Bridge doc update

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 17:28:52 +0800
Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> After a long busy period. I got time to check how to update the
> bridge doc. Here is the previous discussion we made[1].
> 
> In this update. I plan to convert all the bridge description/comments
> to the kernel headers. And add sphinx identifiers in the doc to show
> them directly. At the same time, I wrote a script to convert the
> description in kernel header file to iproute2 man doc. With this,
> there is no need to maintain the doc in 2 places.
> 
> For the script. I use python docutils to read the rst comments. When
> dump the man page. I do it manually to match the current ip link man
> page style. I tried rst2man, but the generated man doc will break the
> current style. If you have any other better way, please tell me.
> 
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/5ddac447-c268-e559-a8dc-08ae3d124352@blackwall.org/
> 
> 
> Hangbin Liu (1):
>   Doc: update bridge doc
> 
>  Documentation/networking/bridge.rst |  85 ++++++++++--
>  include/uapi/linux/if_bridge.h      |  24 ++++
>  include/uapi/linux/if_link.h        | 194
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 293 insertions(+), 10
> deletions(-)
> 

Not sure this is good idea.
- you are special casing bridge documentation and there is lots of
  other parts of iproute2
- you are introducing a dependency on python in iproute2
- the kernel headers in iproute2 come from sanitized kernel headers. So
  fixing the documentation would take longer.

What problem is this trying to solve?