From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:12871 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751969AbdJaILt (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Oct 2017 04:11:49 -0400 From: Jani Nikula Subject: Re: [PATCH] Check all .c files for bad kernel-doc comments In-Reply-To: <20171030205134.GA29718@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20171027194149.14328-1-willy@infradead.org> <20171030134007.GA2846@bombadil.infradead.org> <87mv48fytl.fsf@intel.com> <20171030205134.GA29718@bombadil.infradead.org> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:13:10 +0200 Message-ID: <8760avg2g9.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Masahiro Yamada , Jonathan Corbet , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Michal Marek , Linux Kbuild mailing list , Matthew Wilcox On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 05:19:18PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> Related, there was also a script to do reStructuredText lint style >> checks in addition to the kernel-doc checks using make CHECK and >> C=1. See http://mid.mail-archive.com/87h98quc1w.fsf@intel.com > > I don't really care which patch goes in. If I understand your python > script correctly, it relies on having various python packages installed. > Unless we're going to switch kernel-doc over to being written in python, > I'd prefer to not require additional dependencies. I think your patch has a much better chance of getting enabled by default in the long run, so I'd prefer that. I've also kind of dropped the ball on my script... but thought it might be interesting. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center