Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation/sphinx: add "nodocs" directive

Jani Nikula
2018-06-19T07:29:36Z

On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:01:32PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018, Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > When kernel-doc:: specified in .rst document without explicit directives,
>> > it outputs both comment and DOC: sections. If a DOC: section was explictly
>> > included in the same document it will be duplicated. For example, the
>> > output generated for Documentation/core-api/idr.rst [1] has "IDA
>> > description" in the "IDA usage" section and in the middle of the API
>> > reference.
>> >
>> > Addition of "nodocs" directive prevents the duplication without the need to
>> > explicitly define what functions should be include in the API reference.
>> >
>> > [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/core-api/idr.html
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> > ---
>> > Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py | 3 +++
>> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py b/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py
>> > index fbedcc3..bc5dd05 100644
>> > --- a/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py
>> > +++ b/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py
>> > @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ class KernelDocDirective(Directive):
>> > 'functions': directives.unchanged_required,
>> > 'export': directives.unchanged,
>> > 'internal': directives.unchanged,
>> > + 'nodocs': directives.unchanged,
>>
>> I'm not convinved this is the prettiest way to achieve what you
>> want. 'nodocs' seems kind of clunky.
>>
>> I'd suggest supporting 'functions' without option arguments, and turning
>> that into kernel-doc -no-doc-sections.
>
> Do you mean something like this:

Yes.

>
> diff --git a/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py b/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py
> index fbedcc3..9d0a7f0 100644
> --- a/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py
> +++ b/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py
> @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ class KernelDocDirective(Directive):
> optional_arguments = 4
> option_spec = {
> 'doc': directives.unchanged_required,
> - 'functions': directives.unchanged_required,
> + 'functions': directives.unchanged,
> 'export': directives.unchanged,
> 'internal': directives.unchanged,
> }
> @@ -75,8 +75,12 @@ class KernelDocDirective(Directive):
> elif 'doc' in self.options:
> cmd += ['-function', str(self.options.get('doc'))]
> elif 'functions' in self.options:
> - for f in str(self.options.get('functions')).split():
> - cmd += ['-function', f]
> + functions = self.options.get('functions').split()

Does .split() get upset if there's no argument? Or do you get an empty
string if there are no options? I forget.

BR,
Jani.

> + if functions:
> + for f in functions:
> + cmd += ['-function', f]
> + else:
> + cmd += ['-no-doc-sections']
>
> for pattern in export_file_patterns:
> for f in glob.glob(env.config.kerneldoc_srctree + '/' + pattern):
>
>> The usage in patch 2/2 would turn into:
>>
>> .. kernel-doc:: include/linux/idr.h
>> :functions:
>>
>> which I think is much better overall in the rst source, complementing
>> the places where you use :doc:.
>>
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>>
>> > }
>> > has_content = False
>> >
>> > @@ -77,6 +78,8 @@ class KernelDocDirective(Directive):
>> > elif 'functions' in self.options:
>> > for f in str(self.options.get('functions')).split():
>> > cmd += ['-function', f]
>> > + elif 'nodocs' in self.options:
>> > + cmd += ['-no-doc-sections']
>> >
>> > for pattern in export_file_patterns:
>> > for f in glob.glob(env.config.kerneldoc_srctree + '/' + pattern):
>>
>> --
>> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
>>

--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center