Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] x86/entry: Atomic statck switching for IST

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 01:04:16PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:

> Definitely it _can_ defeat the purpose and be heavily formatted.But it
> doesn't have to. It's like programming in perl.
> 
> What I had in mind was e.g. "DOC: TTY Struct Flags":
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/tty.h#n261

 * TTY_THROTTLED
 *	Driver input is throttled. The ldisc should call
 *	:c:member:`tty_driver.unthrottle()` in order to resume reception when
 *	it is ready to process more data (at threshold min).

That whole :c:member:'tty_driver.unthrottle()' is an abomination and
has no place in a comment.

> Resulting in:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/tty/tty_struct.html#tty-struct-flags
> 
> Both the source and the result are quite readable, IMO. And the markup in
> the source is not mandatory, it's only for emphasizing and hyperlinks.
> 
> As I wrote, you can link the comment in the code. But definitely you don't
> have to, if you don't want. I like the linking in Documentation as I can put
> the pieces from various sources/headers together to one place and build a
> bigger picture.
> 
> > I really detest that whole RST thing, and my solution is to explicitly
> > not write kerneldoc, that way the doc generation stuff doesn't complain
> > and I don't get random drive by patches wrecking the perfectly readable
> > comment.
> 
> Sure. Rst _sources_ are not readable, IMO. Only generated man pages or html
> are.

But code comments are read in a text editor, not a browser. Hence all
the markup is counter productive.

Why would you go read something in a browser if you have the code right
there in a text editor?