From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:57478 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750952AbdE3NXK (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 May 2017 09:23:10 -0400 Message-ID: <1496150587.3327.11.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20170530_152317_055924_7FFFC4AA) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation/sphinx: kerneldoc: add "unused-functions" From: Johannes Berg To: Jani Nikula , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 15:23:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: <8737do3a7i.fsf@intel.com> References: <20170331071632.6209-1-johannes@sipsolutions.net> <878tnl38ur.fsf@intel.com> <1491249573.4714.3.camel@sipsolutions.net> <8737do3a7i.fsf@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 10:26 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > Interesting, TBH I never even considered this. How would I even run > > it that way? Presumably "make htmldocs" doesn't do this? > > Try 'make SPHINXOPTS=-j8 htmldocs'. Yep, makes sense. > > Sphinx documentation (http://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/stable/extdev/) says > > this: > > > >     The setup() function can return a dictionary. This is treated by > >     Sphinx as metadata of the extension. Metadata keys currently > >     recognized are: > >     [...] > >     'parallel_read_safe': a boolean that specifies if parallel reading > >     of source files can be used when the extension is loaded. It > >     defaults to False, i.e. you have to explicitly specify your > >     extension to be parallel-read-safe after checking that it is. > > > >     We do set this right now, so I guess it'd only be guaranteed to work > >     right within a single rst file, and then I should perhaps consider not > >     making this state global but somehow linking it to the rst file being > >     processed? > > Perhaps, but does that defeat the purpose then? Yeah, it kinda does. For my original use case in cfg80211 we only have a single file, but even in mac80211 we already use more than one. Not sure what to do then - I guess we just can't do that, unless we prevent using this with parallelization, which seems awkward. johannes