Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Integrate rustdoc into Rust documentation

[Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>]

Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> writes:

> Well, I'm actually worrying about additional TAT when I want to test
> a particular change in a .rst file and test-build under the relevant
> subdirectory using a command, e.g., "make SPHINXDIRS=doc-guide htmldocs".
>
> This completes almost instantly when CONFIG_RUST is not set.
>
> With CONFIG_RUST=y, in my test, it runs RUSTDOC even when rustdoc is
> already generated once, as shown below:

This is something that would be nice to avoid if we can; narrowing
things with SPHINXDIRS should avoid building anything that the user
isn't asking for.  I'm not sure how much makefile pain would be required
to make that happen...Documentation/Makefile is not the easiest place to
make changes, alas.

> I think you can add a new target in the top-devel Makefile which
> runs both rustdoc and htmldocs for CIs. Something like 'htmldocsboth'
> or 'htmldocsall'???
>
> htmldocs and other *docs targets are the most primitive ones for
> running Sphinx, so my gut feeling tells me _not_ to contaminate
> htmldocs with rustdoc or vice versa.

Well, I *would* like for a bare "make htmldocs" to make *all* of the
docs; I don't think Rust should be special in that regard.

>> (It is also why I wondered above about
>> `CONFIG_WARN_MISSING_DOCUMENTS`: if `Documentation/` intended to
>> require a config as a whole, then it would be fine. I assume that is
>> not the case, though, but not doing the sync is nevertheless a bit
>> confusing)
>
> I have no idea. (Note: I was not around when the kernel documentation
> transitioned to Sphinx.)

I think we're just seeing the implementation as was rammed in by
somebody in a hurry; I don't doubt it could be improved.

Thanks,

jon  (currently traveling and scrambling to get ready for the merge window)