From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-20.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9157C433B4 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 19:33:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F256101E for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 19:33:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235429AbhCaTck (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:32:40 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54874 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236030AbhCaTcK (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:32:10 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:3a1::42]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAC5CC061574; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:32:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:281:8300:104d::5f6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 335FA9A8; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 19:32:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 335FA9A8 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1617219130; bh=hZwGuOo7xBljtRcLVGar1Uk5RDsxdyJQt5UiAYHN+jc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=E7ufQWAca4gTgjOdNkDbwdFZsU25mdw2tplB6ctexMcpjFECDHkl1uj1asFkfJKU3 FkOuM5VUFbxiYj/qttGYof7zZJCFaIgqbHW1bPmTjd7lxgqNlvTw+iGBZPWSCISx9v 9pI2Qqy9Y2QdlMJA9dEJQ8nRrhNnwQ8NLclSBVvC3geZBz+9cnAC2Vnf0MBJwehQA4 tjDzwKUOmgEeisYHK0jaNMQYIRKAuUbKXb0NLmMvZ0p6TkwgUPm+3M2+A5bpj/8vYO //zZZKmzljHy5HqES9WWjgE627obg0Ek79rboZLNSGrDseW7+Q9AGKktpVG4tQcL2Z r5sj8cQXv0I4w== From: Jonathan Corbet To: Aditya Srivastava Cc: lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com, linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: kernel-doc: add warning for comment not following kernel-doc syntax In-Reply-To: References: <20210329092945.13152-1-yashsri421@gmail.com> <87czvit65m.fsf@meer.lwn.net> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:32:09 -0600 Message-ID: <87mtujktl2.fsf@meer.lwn.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Aditya Srivastava writes: > On 29/3/21 7:26 pm, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >> Aditya Srivastava writes: >> >>> Currently, kernel-doc start parsing the comment as a kernel-doc comment if >>> it starts with '/**', but does not take into account if the content inside >>> the comment too, adheres with the expected format. >>> This results in unexpected and unclear warnings for the user. >>> >>> E.g., running scripts/kernel-doc -none mm/memcontrol.c emits: >>> "mm/memcontrol.c:961: warning: expecting prototype for do not fallback to current(). Prototype was for get_mem_cgroup_from_current() instead" >>> >>> Here kernel-doc parses the corresponding comment as a kernel-doc comment >>> and expects prototype for it in the next lines, and as a result causing >>> this warning. >>> >>> Provide a clearer warning message to the users regarding the same, if the >>> content inside the comment does not follow the kernel-doc expected format. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Aditya Srivastava >>> --- >>> scripts/kernel-doc | 17 +++++++++++++---- >>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> This is definitely a capability we want, but I really don't think that >> we can turn it on by default - for now. Experience shows that if you >> create a blizzard of warnings, nobody sees any of them. How many >> warnings does this add to a full docs build? >> > > Hi Jonathan, here's the diff I have created for the warnings before > and after the changes: > https://github.com/AdityaSrivast/kernel-tasks/blob/master/random/kernel-doc/kernel_doc_comment_syntax.txt > > Around ~1320 new warnings of this type are added to the kernel tree, > and around ~1580 warnings are removed. So I finally got around to looking at this again... How did you generate that file? I tried applying the patch and doing a normal full htmldocs build and got all of four warnings: ./include/linux/seqlock.h:829: warning: This comment starts with '/**', but isn't a kernel-doc comment. Refer Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst * DEFINE_SEQLOCK(sl) - Define a statically allocated seqlock_t ./fs/jbd2/journal.c:1391: warning: This comment starts with '/**', but isn't a kernel-doc comment. Refer Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst * journal_t * jbd2_journal_init_dev() - creates and initialises a journal structure ./fs/jbd2/journal.c:1422: warning: This comment starts with '/**', but isn't a kernel-doc comment. Refer Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst * journal_t * jbd2_journal_init_inode () - creates a journal which maps to a inode. ./include/linux/dcache.h:309: warning: This comment starts with '/**', but isn't a kernel-doc comment. Refer Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst * dget, dget_dlock - get a reference to a dentry Two observations: - This is not an awful lot of warnings - not the blizzard I had feared. At this level, I think we can just merge the patch and then, hopefully, fix those cases. - All of the warned-about places are *attempts* to write real kerneldoc comments, they just got the syntax wrong in one way or another. It's probably not worth the effort to try to detect this case - the warning is enough to draw attention to the comment in question. Thanks, jon