From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Heiser Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next] bpf: document eBPF helpers and add a script to generate man page Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:35:25 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20180406111122.11038-1-quentin.monnet@netronome.com> <05d2d03a-0b39-9d0c-9ba0-3461afc45fac@iogearbox.net> <81150b4e-79d5-f837-72bc-d988e87f842a@iogearbox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jonathan Corbet , Quentin Monnet , ast@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, oss-drivers@netronome.com, Linux Doc Mailing List , linux-man@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Borkmann Return-path: Received: from smtp3-1.goneo.de ([85.220.129.38]:42826 "EHLO smtp3-1.goneo.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751456AbeDIJfd (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Apr 2018 05:35:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <81150b4e-79d5-f837-72bc-d988e87f842a@iogearbox.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Am 09.04.2018 um 11:25 schrieb Daniel Borkmann : > > On 04/09/2018 11:21 AM, Markus Heiser wrote: > [...] >> Do we really need another kernel-doc parser? >> >> ./scripts/kernel-doc include/uapi/linux/bpf.h >> >> should already do the job (producing .rst). For more infos, take a look at > > This has absolutely zero to do with kernel-doc, but rather producing > a description of BPF helper function that are later assembled into an > actual man-page that BPF program developers (user space) can use. May I completely misunderstood you, so correct my if I'am wrong: - ./scripts/bpf_helpers_doc.py : produces reST markup from C-comments - ./scripts/kerne-doc : produces reST markup from C-comments IMO: both are doing the same job, so why not using kernel-doc? -- Markus --