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 4A3F84301C1; Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:34:50 +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=1772559291; cv=none; b=cpJUuO1hyfOaS31eo6TLsiYqjUTkguiICgAdQ1xWzG+xtirPmqRdNENKojRNsLRmpNMJJPTjI+hcmcTS1Y0FPuCUjaaHDEYLyWhBc4NhvE3O+5dWXRiFgbci609zLoA20rCNn25V72Ng93cnZ23Ym2lHWIVEaPHavFUPTU1PPZM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772559291; c=relaxed/simple; bh=70uyYe7s2E6X7AnJBGkkkxOS7v1d2Km08tJCTIMGiYc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Vz42CqrFqyKwXllhYK7qEjJd1ZsOHuREoxcB1Vrcz+AheCaFxFpkgETzjNPv67zpDoYwBZM88mYlK68RFF1QvAgZAKwJcSg0WDkbBwirRWfXioQpw/Sqrwy4HiTnqHJTDj/nkJ6QhCKR3DYUWm+A0DfCAPibhUiiWnDrG/zcOzQ= 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=W7/5EYBP; 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="W7/5EYBP" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 7679F40429 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1772559289; bh=p1Z/TBWG1G2IxEOxUKWAwXVAY46Ni5SU7OEprjK7kAc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=W7/5EYBPQPftHPWTuXHVc0QQg65BR+1Srd8l5IKh6defNW83NQ4RdewlXd8BNnAHI gon9byPQr3GIjqcm7OEzIHAlSaQdDJEG5QZ78whALJ6UznBSeEKajdz4+AyOJJ7x80 6K4JPBFX/7NPoBcjn5FYQnMiHHv6RZZy8mjYHfRHgA6hBn2mYIqw+9kkHENK+e/HgQ webzLTXGNRJqzPNAskAhLXtF+HCn63D9G4K2AQlg7r/D5LFrKxzLwMy3TrAiUsLTqC qKfe/z0AuhyewZ54TYO/TmFB6xQZ5tkeJxV/xsl94s98jF4CnZlJDjjr1Qe+fEZocI /EDGqYiZKBDXA== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:27b::1fe]) (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 7679F40429; Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:34:49 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Linux Doc Mailing List Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Aleksandr Loktionov , Randy Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/18] docs: kdoc_parser: fix parser to support multi-word types In-Reply-To: <544c73a9e670b6fef1828bf4f2ba0de7d29d8675.1772469446.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> References: <544c73a9e670b6fef1828bf4f2ba0de7d29d8675.1772469446.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2026 10:34:48 -0700 Message-ID: <87jyvsbyvb.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: > The regular expression currently expects a single word for the > type, but it may be something like "struct foo". > > Add support for it. > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab > Acked-by: Randy Dunlap > Tested-by: Randy Dunlap > Reviewed-by: Aleksandr Loktionov > --- > tools/lib/python/kdoc/kdoc_parser.py | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/lib/python/kdoc/kdoc_parser.py b/tools/lib/python/kdoc/kdoc_parser.py > index 39ff27d421eb..22a820d33dc8 100644 > --- a/tools/lib/python/kdoc/kdoc_parser.py > +++ b/tools/lib/python/kdoc/kdoc_parser.py > @@ -1018,14 +1018,14 @@ class KernelDoc: > > default_val = None > > - r= KernRe(OPTIONAL_VAR_ATTR + r"[\w_]*\s+(?:\*+)?([\w_]+)\s*[\d\]\[]*\s*(=.*)?") > + r= KernRe(OPTIONAL_VAR_ATTR + r"\s*[\w_\s]*\s+(?:\*+)?([\w_]+)\s*[\d\]\[]*\s*(=.*)?") Just for future reference...I *really* think that the code is improved by breaking up and commenting gnarly regexes like this. They are really unreadable in this form. (And yes, I know the code has been full of these forever, but we can always try to make it better :) Anyway, just grumbling. Thanks, jon