From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8977E3F54C2; Tue, 17 Mar 2026 17:12:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773767572; cv=none; b=DhT+gtOekui/xYpTfArvb2yNUB598WkNrQ+meLdZhH/warWd8c45KtjlO40dyJMCScaB8X7hX+gVlogTd4kN3J497QT23nS9Xdv8/8XgFM1cQ61hqesDFVpkc4fRC0cca6w6ND4J3V4cklLC1tDGVlpPbYA+ES+YoNkhJvEfxZ8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773767572; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MkUqlGq+8WbdsyEkcmuk5r8HhcT2kicxmH1EFnsxj3w=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=OfnUWxM7GR6APIdHT/VZujgJFTUM9KHUXuj73PRWNd1fjGLlnvKGl+L7pybztpUhPjpaipwFmebVzjqGVwenwbWseXQkTDpDpOcjsoPdiWnuTD9iaVNPA7fC8wYUNeQvGJNNx2/k+6iZx8R0SOPpicUMqNjxqrG66fbDyJpvQjw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=iclPxuaq; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="iclPxuaq" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net CA07A40C7C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1773767570; bh=YGW9AtIGtQaMlzk+gREVwoY+tud5xTkK4Urxl3cynwQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=iclPxuaq14pC/gS+AVEQH8T7X8DbPEjN4teBZ21H+Bxk8XCPGPvUNVQXRKqwUqhDP h0mmdmWul+gxmAbFoDrf5OtTmu0892zxcWzF0GJnMxppAdaZfxfQypGJy8nqZQ6opb +ix396oBQJ8guw033InBwYWjtEqLlNwPWoMkgKuo7O6OJvtVzGF6hWdT1YGnIbbgAq GdDc7isDDlpiz2zjJWk/K0d2YcoNIAWdkjc05wwqaHTcjo+qj5DhJck8+4dliMrnWX jI33k438MlKAvu8kJVMDPRX6DTJ70efpyLmyLtTZVyXdg/qlC2ry+8wHmhmCLcAhv5 LARxbOkHNCAhg== Received: from localhost (c-71-229-227-126.hsd1.co.comcast.net [71.229.227.126]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA07A40C7C; Tue, 17 Mar 2026 17:12:50 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Kees Cook , Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" , Aleksandr Loktionov , Randy Dunlap , Shuah Khan , Vincent Mailhol Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/28] kernel-doc: use a C lexical tokenizer for transforms In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 11:12:50 -0600 Message-ID: <87tsue9y7h.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mauro Carvalho Chehab writes: > Sorry for respamming this one too quick. It ends that v1 had some > bugs causing it to fail on several cases. I opted to add extra > patches in the end. This way, it better integrates with kdoc_re. > As part of it, now c_lex will output file name when reporting > errors. With that regards, only more serious errors will raise > an exception. They are meant to indicate problems at kernel-doc > itself. Parsing errors are now using the same warning approach > as kdoc_parser. > > I also added a filter at Ctokenizer __str__() logic for the > string convertion to drop some weirdness whitespaces and uneeded > ";" characters at the output. > > Finally, v2 address the undefined behavior about private: comment > propagation. > > This patch series change how kdoc parser handles macro replacements. So I have at least glanced at the whole series now; other than the few things I pointed out, I don't find a whole lot to complain about. I do worry about adding another 2000 lines to kernel-doc, even if more than half of them are tests. But hopefully it leads to a better and more maintainable system. We're starting to get late enough in the cycle that I'm a bit leery of applying this work for 7.1. What was your thinking on timing? Thanks, jon