From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754921AbcH0Ina (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Aug 2016 04:43:30 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:7363 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752533AbcH0In2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Aug 2016 04:43:28 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,586,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="1047966998" From: Jani Nikula To: Jonathan Corbet , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Cc: LKML , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Markus Heiser Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: make kernel-doc handle varargs properly In-Reply-To: <20160826072544.2baadd47@lwn.net> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <20160826072544.2baadd47@lwn.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.22.1+62~g2a7b11b (https://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:43:18 +0300 Message-ID: <874m66d2l5.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > As far as I can tell, the handling of "..." arguments has never worked > right, so any documentation provided was ignored in favor of "variable > arguments." This makes kernel-doc handle "@...:" as documented. It does > *not* fix spots in kerneldoc comments that don't follow that convention, > but they are no more broken than before. > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet > --- > scripts/kernel-doc | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc > index c681e8f0ecc2..e6c52ab938fd 100755 > --- a/scripts/kernel-doc > +++ b/scripts/kernel-doc > @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ my $doc_com_body = '\s*\* ?'; > my $doc_decl = $doc_com . '(\w+)'; > # @params and a strictly limited set of supported section names > my $doc_sect = $doc_com . > - '\s*(\@\w+|description|context|returns?|notes?|examples?)\s*:(.*)'; > + '\s*(\@[.\w]+|description|context|returns?|notes?|examples?)\s*:(.*)'; So this will now accept "@foo.bar.baz:" too, right? Should it be something like this instead? '\s*(\@\w+|\@\.\.\.|description|context|returns?|notes?|examples?)\s*:(.*)'; BR, Jani. > my $doc_content = $doc_com_body . '(.*)'; > my $doc_block = $doc_com . 'DOC:\s*(.*)?'; > my $doc_inline_start = '^\s*/\*\*\s*$'; > @@ -2340,6 +2340,7 @@ sub push_parameter($$$) { > > if ($type eq "" && $param =~ /\.\.\.$/) > { > + $param = "..."; > if (!defined $parameterdescs{$param} || $parameterdescs{$param} eq "") { > $parameterdescs{$param} = "variable arguments"; > } -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center