From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD987D04D for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 10:56:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726565AbfBHK4H (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 05:56:07 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:46434 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726068AbfBHK4H (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 05:56:07 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x18AnkHC028201 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 05:56:05 -0500 Received: from e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.103]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qh6vs477u-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 05:56:05 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 10:56:04 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.137) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 8 Feb 2019 10:56:01 -0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x18Au0om55246878 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 10:56:00 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A703BA4053; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 10:56:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281AEA4040; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 10:56:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rapoport-lnx (unknown [9.148.205.183]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 10:56:00 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 12:55:58 +0200 From: Mike Rapoport To: Markus Heiser Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Joe Perches , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Return: vs Returns: References: <20190207135924.GV21860@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190207153056.GB9120@rapoport-lnx> <8cacba6c-32c1-f60b-dfb0-0c74ef09d53c@darmarit.de> <20190207161852.GC8040@rapoport-lnx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19020810-0028-0000-0000-000003462717 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19020810-0029-0000-0000-000024043B17 Message-Id: <20190208105557.GE11096@rapoport-lnx> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-02-08_07:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902080078 Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 06:33:34PM +0100, Markus Heiser wrote: > > Am 07.02.19 um 17:18 schrieb Mike Rapoport: > >>>Does checkpatch checks the kernel-doc parts at all? > >>No. I guess there are to many places to fail / to hard to put someone in > >>charge. E.g. if you do include a single kernel-doc comment from a source all > >>kernel-docs in the source will be parsed and may produce (error/warning) > >>essages. What we have, are some targets: > >> > >>-linkcheckdocs > >> check for broken external links (will connect to external hosts) > >> > >>- refcheckdocs > >> check for references to non-existing files under Documentation > >Right, but these should be checked explicitly and I doubt many people do it > >before submitting patches. OTOH, checkpatch is something that's widely used > >and if it had verified the kernel-doc parts, more comments would be > >following the convention. > > I'am with you, but I do not have any clue how to solve this Gordian Knot > faithful and without massive collateral damage / sorry :| > > The only thing I know, we have the -none option: > > $ ./scripts/kernel-doc -none ./include/media/cec.h > ./include/media/cec.h:51: warning: Function parameter or member 'lock' not > described in 'cec_devnode' > > But this is nothing more than noise if the patch does not touch cec_devnode. > And there is another problem I see, if we want to check refs ... Well, the case when a patch changes function parameters but forgets to update the kernel-doc part is particularly annoying. I believe it's possible to match function parameter changes with the corresponding kernel-doc changes (or lack of them). > >> -linkcheckdocs > >> check for broken external links (will connect to external hosts) > >> > >> - refcheckdocs > >> check for references to non-existing files under Documentation > > The refs are solved late in the sphinx build process when .rst files and > kernel-doc comments come together .. so we need sphinx for checkpatch, > I gues this is a no-go (?) > > -- Markus -- > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.