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 7FECF384243; Wed, 4 Mar 2026 22:34:11 +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=1772663652; cv=none; b=ln5HDeLuzr4qdzmj33QYrWPDrp0WeK6lEYfo0o+ACEU3i2nAg36kO2jhXVP45ONf6xkzPd90qewd/6IX9cCDkhuhLp0jVye8TUEkpAlCVyPzWS7DUVhOozx1pJKcsxZo28XRHnaMOFJwjwogAJkgzMCVSNJa2/fTo3i2aYFKkAo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772663652; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TkcuoO5tsFwY/l5ERE7A1b0z+I2NDXDqlLISsvfDeCQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=A52rYDaQFhQtle+GMeKIRbfNzHiGkhHsg/tSKs0ugvdMbMUz86A/zJYNDx0QYjEhVRAdbjemwkLdnkisVWMHHLfJ7Zm2k5+Mm57EHslTn2o+8GelFMlZKj5qCrvxjvNSq9S4ziWlNDxGbqFwAhGfmfGo06XKL9mwYIEG8oZdoFQ= 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=FFoWFdvK; 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="FFoWFdvK" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net A78E940B4E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1772663644; bh=QFep6DoXCTa6MHlsiX+CObDNlX2M5BuqRR2s8vPNjQw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=FFoWFdvKTGVVYBua1siObF/ey46mYxmOLcZGV2bmR2fbaG6NwxZ3th2uh5jbu5utG 0qB8XWF6PqZ14mHP/DYJKy+g3i5IAfL/vXb+tYHDuPZFawpGT3ysTRYqldztWkiTwj kjojNazoDd05ZY5le9rksrrzwAm3IzxuauTFzhxnzwEH3+zHvFxTiLkKc9qq/Ma8xA ptUz7PtIv/b2FJZ8P3JuSzpkI/8l7U3T96cGfvEDJ/5PwBuZMX513Qs+F56zRvqBLz KSiGjd8eTlzi41qo48+AR3nRw7WV1cwHxr2IOUjfd2XbsvwNy1wv7aeMWN7I7sCGIS KDeyNFJQM2Gyw== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:27b::1fe]) (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 A78E940B4E; Wed, 4 Mar 2026 22:34:04 +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: <352c3f9f8ffd2d031c86a476e532a8ea6ffcf1ed@intel.com> References: <33d214091909b9a060637f56f81fb8f525cf433b@intel.com> <878qcj8pvw.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <352c3f9f8ffd2d031c86a476e532a8ea6ffcf1ed@intel.com> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2026 15:34:03 -0700 Message-ID: <87seaf442s.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: > So yeah, there are definitely tradeoffs there. But it's not like this > constant patching of kernel-doc is exactly burden free either. I don't > know, is it just me, but I'd like to think as a profession we'd be past > writing ad hoc C parsers by now. I don't think that having a "real" parser is going to free us from the need to patch kernel-doc. The kernel uses a weird form of C, and kernel-doc is expected to evolve as our dialect of the language does. It *might* make that patching job easier -- that is to be seen -- but it won't make it go away. Thanks, jon