From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41719361DB2; Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:07:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771859256; cv=none; b=JnbHaTV9YmljZeU/VTJnHdXHZOdA7/61qMyl7O3LzEoMDq455U8axtyvXLaqphEArUx2qVkcc8v5DwTBj7jjioG1oe99Uho2uRsRmmas/f/h2CaZufBX1o2AAH0p7tersxQjS0b3n2d5c/PJmZk4haYH3UpePDcbMxgeRqYX+tg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771859256; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6ZP8MgbtGH5MobBoC2FmXVMgOF3DCo3R40gaWjqdmuE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JD6WBu/PHULf0vbZKHSGIFoAzRugZaH3vM8tz+VDlNXgXvAyiAsxsOC5Ite4Jg+JW/buf8QsQdQT+x1m+e0i0vLYk/RxS1oOTnqHn8mDnr04h+7pqlAi0DsQhMuOIQ2HhM3YBl2GTd5ypWCi0uxJpeizT0UwyEbluspZdVA5HyQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=pmyRjEdO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="pmyRjEdO" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 36B9640C6F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1771858932; bh=uNGo1sx9Ki+w096sWaEIkC6IKo4fwwadEMyWfut8oEA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=pmyRjEdODIjeAipqFcXYuUUMrCqulImfJMdvpChSX4o/WEBWx/D9iIlWRpC28MpMR qVDCmq+hq0AkV08Ab8WKXCSn3jVSTe44fDZpyszr6qmMY8FVvxyKZSG4VIFau2YsLd 6HmQreBiYMLctEplPjUNpkQHDtzx90LkD1LwYV6ym6ZGVr2QfWgD8ASD79pfZpssJm 6jsdZ7c9cQC8TcmBk0h3GmT35iZy0vd2tpZL0AmNvmaqMWI1Q7BnfoIBzCZR5JfsDI 1+Hnuvb8/6/Nn5MLCnkYX2noN97MOig+H33SStCdhDKoh1Zib9BjIAcfdAoKMAPONc fVwEGo2bWGoog== Received: from localhost (c-71-229-227-126.hsd1.co.comcast.net [71.229.227.126]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36B9640C6F; Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:02:12 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Jani Nikula , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Alexander Lobakin , Kees Cook , Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" , Aleksandr Loktionov , Randy Dunlap , Shuah Khan Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/38] docs: several improvements to kernel-doc In-Reply-To: <33d214091909b9a060637f56f81fb8f525cf433b@intel.com> References: <33d214091909b9a060637f56f81fb8f525cf433b@intel.com> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 08:02:11 -0700 Message-ID: <878qcj8pvw.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Jani Nikula writes: > There's always the question, if you're putting a lot of effort into > making kernel-doc closer to an actual C parser, why not put all that > effort into using and adapting to, you know, an actual C parser? Not speaking to the current effort but ... in the past, when I have contemplated this (using, say, tree-sitter), the real problem is that those parsers simply strip out the comments. Kerneldoc without comments ... doesn't work very well. If there were a parser without those problems, and which could be made to do the right thing with all of our weird macro usage, it would certainly be worth considering. jon