Re: [PATCH v1 10/25] seqlock: Add RST directives to kernel-doc code samples and notes

Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-25T13:44:59Z

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:36:49AM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> > I will not let sensible code comments deteriorate to the benefit of some
> > external piece of crap.
> >
> > As a programmer the primary interface to all this is a text editor, not
> > a web broswer or a pdf file or whatever other bullshit.
> >
> > If comments are unreadable in your text editor, they're useless.
>
> Wait.
>
> Most of the patch in question is just substituting the code snippet's
> leading white spaces to tabs. For illustration purposes, if we remove
> these white space hunks from the diff, it becomes:
>
> --- a/include/linux/seqlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/seqlock.h
> @@ -232,6 +232,8 @@ static inline void raw_write_seqcount_end(seqcount_t *s)
> + * .. code-block:: c
> ...
> + * .. code-block:: c
> ...
> - * NOTE: The non-requirement for atomic modifications does _NOT_ include
> - * the publishing of new entries in the case where data is a dynamic
> - * data structure.
> + * .. attention::
> + *
> + * The non-requirement for atomic modifications does _NOT_ include
> + * the publishing of new entries in the case where data is a dynamic
> + * data structure.
> ...
>
> Are you trying to tell me that, good heavens, these directives are
> really hurting your eyes so much?

Yep, they're a distraction and serve absolutely no purpose. They're also
utterly moronic, of course it's code and of course it's bloody well C.

> Putting kernel-doc aside... That huge raw_write_seqcount_latch() comment
> is actually *way more readable from any text editor* after applying this
> patch. Go figure.

I don't mind the re-indent.

> >>> The correct fix is, as always, to remove the kernel-doc marker.
>
> Sorry, that's not the correct fix.

Of course it is, if kerneldoc complains that a perfectly good comment
is no good, then the fault lies with kerneldoc.

It's like checkpatch; assume it is wrong :-)

> In the following patches, kernel-doc for the entire seqlock.h API is
> added. Singling out raw_write_seqcount_latch() doesn't make any sense.

% s/\/\*\*/\/\*/g -- tada!!

> If you look at the top of this patch series, a lot of seqlock.h
> seqcount_t call sites were badly broken. The 0day kernel test bot sent
> me even more erroneous call sites due to the added lockdep checks. This
> is an extra argument for the added documentation: the existing one is
> horrible.

I've nothing against improving comments, I'm just saying that RST is
absolute atrocious shite and has nothing to do with good comments.

If sphinx doesn't like "NOTE:' when go teach it.

> So, please, don't claim that the current situation is fine. It is not.

I've never claimed that. My claim is that RST is shite and has no added
value.