| Message ID | 1438376805-8964-1-git-send-email-danilo.cesar@collabora.co.uk (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:06:45 -0300 Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula <danilo.cesar@collabora.co.uk> wrote: > Describing arguments at top of a struct definition works fine > for small/medium size structs, but it definitely doesn't work well > for struct with a huge list of elements. > > Keeping the arguments list inside the struct body makes it easier > to maintain the documentation. Interesting approach. I think it could make sense, but I fear pushback from a subset of maintainers refusing to accept this mode. I wonder what it would take to get a consensus on allowing these in-struct comments? I'm wondering if we need a kernel summit session on commenting conventions, markdown-in-kerneldoc, etc? Maybe I'll stick a proposal out there. Thanks, jon
Hi Jon, On Saturday 01 August 2015 13:22:10 Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:06:45 -0300 Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula wrote: > > Describing arguments at top of a struct definition works fine > > for small/medium size structs, but it definitely doesn't work well > > for struct with a huge list of elements. > > > > Keeping the arguments list inside the struct body makes it easier > > to maintain the documentation. > > Interesting approach. I think it could make sense, but I fear pushback > from a subset of maintainers refusing to accept this mode. I wonder what > it would take to get a consensus on allowing these in-struct comments? > > I'm wondering if we need a kernel summit session on commenting > conventions, markdown-in-kerneldoc, etc? Maybe I'll stick a proposal out > there. The topic of documentation has been raised in the mail thread of the kernel recruitment proposal for the kernel summit. I believe it's an important one, and I will be very interested in contributing if it is discussed as a separate topic.
On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 01:22:10PM +0200, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:06:45 -0300 > Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula <danilo.cesar@collabora.co.uk> wrote: > > > Describing arguments at top of a struct definition works fine > > for small/medium size structs, but it definitely doesn't work well > > for struct with a huge list of elements. > > > > Keeping the arguments list inside the struct body makes it easier > > to maintain the documentation. > > Interesting approach. I think it could make sense, but I fear pushback > from a subset of maintainers refusing to accept this mode. I wonder what > it would take to get a consensus on allowing these in-struct comments? At least in drm we have a lot of such comments (as non-kerneldoc) right above struct members to explain some details. Common examples are: - locks, with a description of what they protect and maybe also how they nest. - vfunc ops structs, with a per-function description of what each hook does. - tricky stuff which can't be described in one sentence only. So it's not just huge structs by number of members, but huge by number of comment lines. Trying to stuff that all into the top kerneldoc comment means that it's much harder to jump to the right comment, and it's also easier to ignore the comments (since it e.g. won't show up in the diff context). The current approach at least in drm is to duplicate comments and that just results in inconsistency. > I'm wondering if we need a kernel summit session on commenting > conventions, markdown-in-kerneldoc, etc? Maybe I'll stick a proposal out > there. Might be useful, but I'm not sure how many people really would actively work on improving the tooling. The only comment I've seen is to maybe use gtkdoc, but that would be a pain since it's slightly incompatible with kerneldoc. And it's the improved tooling I really need for my long-term plan to get solid docs for drm & drm/i915. Next step is to start building a proper doc writer team to make all the bits we already have into a consistent hole (and nag developers to fill in the areas still undocumented). For that I've already pulled Danilo's patches into the drm-intel integration tree and I plan to use them for any further drm kerneldoc I write since we really need them. Thanks, Daniel
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:23:19 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > > I'm wondering if we need a kernel summit session on commenting > > conventions, markdown-in-kerneldoc, etc? Maybe I'll stick a proposal out > > there. > > Might be useful, but I'm not sure how many people really would actively > work on improving the tooling. The only comment I've seen is to maybe use > gtkdoc, but that would be a pain since it's slightly incompatible with > kerneldoc. The idea was to get a sense for what sort of improvements would be useful, to begin with. But my attempt to start a discussion on the kernel summit list appears to have hit the ground pretty hard; I guess that means I have free rein :) I expect I'll apply the struct-args doc patch in the fairly near future. Then we'll see if others complain when patches using it start to show up, but the feature itself shouldn't break anything. I'm *really* hoping to take a hard look at Danilo's stuff for a 4.3 merge as well. It should be possible, but there's real-world obnoxiousness that is doing its best to get in the way. jon
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 08:37:41AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:23:19 +0200 > Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > > > > I'm wondering if we need a kernel summit session on commenting > > > conventions, markdown-in-kerneldoc, etc? Maybe I'll stick a proposal out > > > there. > > > > Might be useful, but I'm not sure how many people really would actively > > work on improving the tooling. The only comment I've seen is to maybe use > > gtkdoc, but that would be a pain since it's slightly incompatible with > > kerneldoc. > > The idea was to get a sense for what sort of improvements would be > useful, to begin with. But my attempt to start a discussion on the > kernel summit list appears to have hit the ground pretty hard; I guess > that means I have free rein :) Wrt feature wishlists the 3 things Danilo has worked on thus far (hyperlinks, markdown and inline struct member kerneldoc) are really the things I'd like to have. Of course there's room for some more prettification, but I think that would better fit as improvements to pandoc. One example is more flexible table handling with row/column spanning - currently pandoc doesn't handle that in the docbook converter. > I expect I'll apply the struct-args doc patch in the fairly near future. > Then we'll see if others complain when patches using it start to show up, > but the feature itself shouldn't break anything. I'm *really* hoping to > take a hard look at Danilo's stuff for a 4.3 merge as well. It should be > possible, but there's real-world obnoxiousness that is doing its best to > get in the way. Awesome. Missing 4.3 wouldn't be a big deal for i915 really since drm feature freeze should happen around -rc5 anyway, so everything new I pull in will be for 4.4 only. But getting it in early always helps, just in case there's something unexpected. -Daniel
On 07/31/15 14:06, Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula wrote: > Describing arguments at top of a struct definition works fine > for small/medium size structs, but it definitely doesn't work well > for struct with a huge list of elements. > > Keeping the arguments list inside the struct body makes it easier > to maintain the documentation. > ie: > /** > * struct my_struct - short description > * @a: first member > * @b: second member > * > * Longer description > */ > struct my_struct { > int a; > int b; > /** > * @c: This is longer description of C > * > * You can use paragraphs to describe arguments > * using this method. > */ > int c; > }; > > This patch allows the use of this kind of syntax. Only one argument > per comment and user can use how many paragraphs he needs. It should > start with /**, which is already being used by kernel-doc. If those > comment doesn't follow those rules, it will be ignored. > > Signed-off-by: Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula <danilo.cesar@collabora.co.uk> > Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> > Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> > Cc: Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de> > Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org > Cc: intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org> > Cc: dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org> > --- > scripts/kernel-doc | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc > index 9922e66..9bfa8b9 100755 > --- a/scripts/kernel-doc > +++ b/scripts/kernel-doc > @@ -133,6 +133,30 @@ use strict; > # > # All descriptions can be multiline, except the short function description. > # > +# For really longs structs, you can also describe arguments inside the > +# body of the struct. > +# eg. > +# /** > +# * struct my_struct - short description > +# * @a: first member > +# * @b: second member > +# * > +# * Longer description > +# */ > +# struct my_struct { > +# int a; > +# int b; > +# /** > +# * @c: This is longer description of C > +# * > +# * You can use paragraphs to describe arguments > +# * using this method. > +# */ > +# int c; > +# }; > +# > +# This should be use for arguments only. used What are "arguments" in this context? do you mean struct fields or members? > +# > # You can also add additional sections. When documenting kernel functions you > # should document the "Context:" of the function, e.g. whether the functions > # can be called form interrupts. Unlike other sections you can end it with an > @@ -287,9 +311,19 @@ my $lineprefix=""; > # 2 - scanning field start. > # 3 - scanning prototype. > # 4 - documentation block > +# 5 - gathering documentation outside main block > my $state; > my $in_doc_sect; > > +# Split Doc State > +# 0 - Invalid (Before start or after finish) > +# 1 - Is started (the /** was found inside a struct) > +# 2 - The @parameter header was found, start accepting multi paragraph text. > +# 3 - Finished (the */ was found) > +# 4 - Error - Comment without header was found. Spit a warning as it's not > +# proper kernel-doc and ignore the rest. > +my $split_doc_state; > + > #declaration types: can be > # 'function', 'struct', 'union', 'enum', 'typedef' > my $decl_type; > @@ -304,6 +338,9 @@ my $doc_decl = $doc_com . '(\w+)'; > my $doc_sect = $doc_com . '([' . $doc_special . ']?[\w\s]+):(.*)'; > my $doc_content = $doc_com_body . '(.*)'; > my $doc_block = $doc_com . 'DOC:\s*(.*)?'; > +my $doc_split_start = '^\s*/\*\*\s*$'; > +my $doc_split_sect = '\s*\*\s*(@[\w\s]+):(.*)'; > +my $doc_split_end = '^\s*\*/\s*$'; > > my %constants; > my %parameterdescs; > @@ -2181,6 +2218,7 @@ sub reset_state { > $prototype = ""; > > $state = 0; > + $split_doc_state = 0; > } > > sub tracepoint_munge($) { > @@ -2453,7 +2491,6 @@ sub process_file($) { > } > $section = $newsection; > } elsif (/$doc_end/) { > - > if (($contents ne "") && ($contents ne "\n")) { > dump_section($file, $section, xml_escape($contents)); > $section = $section_default; > @@ -2494,8 +2531,47 @@ sub process_file($) { > print STDERR "Warning(${file}:$.): bad line: $_"; > ++$warnings; > } > + } elsif ($state == 5) { # scanning for split parameters > + > + # First line (state 1) needs to be a @parameter > + if ($split_doc_state == 1 && /$doc_split_sect/o) { > + $section = $1; > + $contents = $2; > + if ($contents ne "") { > + while ((substr($contents, 0, 1) eq " ") || > + substr($contents, 0, 1) eq "\t") { > + $contents = substr($contents, 1); > + } > + $contents .= "\n"; > + } > + $split_doc_state = 2; > + > + # End commend */ comment > + } elsif (/$doc_split_end/) { > + if (($contents ne "") && ($contents ne "\n")) { > + dump_section($file, $section, xml_escape($contents)); > + $section = $section_default; > + $contents = ""; > + } > + $state = 3; > + $split_doc_state = 0; > +
On 08/03/2015 12:59 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 07/31/15 14:06, Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula wrote: >> Describing arguments at top of a struct definition works fine >> for small/medium size structs, but it definitely doesn't work well >> for struct with a huge list of elements. >> >> Keeping the arguments list inside the struct body makes it easier >> to maintain the documentation. >> ie: >> /** >> * struct my_struct - short description >> * @a: first member >> * @b: second member >> * >> * Longer description >> */ >> struct my_struct { >> int a; >> int b; >> /** >> * @c: This is longer description of C >> * >> * You can use paragraphs to describe arguments >> * using this method. >> */ >> int c; >> }; >> >> This patch allows the use of this kind of syntax. Only one argument >> per comment and user can use how many paragraphs he needs. It should >> start with /**, which is already being used by kernel-doc. If those >> comment doesn't follow those rules, it will be ignored. >> >> Signed-off-by: Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula <danilo.cesar@collabora.co.uk> >> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> >> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> >> Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> >> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> >> Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> >> Cc: Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de> >> Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz> >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org> >> Cc: dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org> >> --- >> scripts/kernel-doc | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc >> index 9922e66..9bfa8b9 100755 >> --- a/scripts/kernel-doc >> +++ b/scripts/kernel-doc >> @@ -133,6 +133,30 @@ use strict; >> # >> # All descriptions can be multiline, except the short function description. >> # >> +# For really longs structs, you can also describe arguments inside the >> +# body of the struct. >> +# eg. >> +# /** >> +# * struct my_struct - short description >> +# * @a: first member >> +# * @b: second member >> +# * >> +# * Longer description >> +# */ >> +# struct my_struct { >> +# int a; >> +# int b; >> +# /** >> +# * @c: This is longer description of C >> +# * >> +# * You can use paragraphs to describe arguments >> +# * using this method. >> +# */ >> +# int c; >> +# }; >> +# >> +# This should be use for arguments only. > > used > > What are "arguments" in this context? do you mean struct fields or members? Yes. I can change the text if you want to. > >> +# >> # You can also add additional sections. When documenting kernel functions you >> # should document the "Context:" of the function, e.g. whether the functions >> # can be called form interrupts. Unlike other sections you can end it with an >> @@ -287,9 +311,19 @@ my $lineprefix=""; >> # 2 - scanning field start. >> # 3 - scanning prototype. >> # 4 - documentation block >> +# 5 - gathering documentation outside main block >> my $state; >> my $in_doc_sect; >> >> +# Split Doc State >> +# 0 - Invalid (Before start or after finish) >> +# 1 - Is started (the /** was found inside a struct) >> +# 2 - The @parameter header was found, start accepting multi paragraph text. >> +# 3 - Finished (the */ was found) >> +# 4 - Error - Comment without header was found. Spit a warning as it's not >> +# proper kernel-doc and ignore the rest. >> +my $split_doc_state; >> + >> #declaration types: can be >> # 'function', 'struct', 'union', 'enum', 'typedef' >> my $decl_type; >> @@ -304,6 +338,9 @@ my $doc_decl = $doc_com . '(\w+)'; >> my $doc_sect = $doc_com . '([' . $doc_special . ']?[\w\s]+):(.*)'; >> my $doc_content = $doc_com_body . '(.*)'; >> my $doc_block = $doc_com . 'DOC:\s*(.*)?'; >> +my $doc_split_start = '^\s*/\*\*\s*$'; >> +my $doc_split_sect = '\s*\*\s*(@[\w\s]+):(.*)'; >> +my $doc_split_end = '^\s*\*/\s*$'; >> >> my %constants; >> my %parameterdescs; >> @@ -2181,6 +2218,7 @@ sub reset_state { >> $prototype = ""; >> >> $state = 0; >> + $split_doc_state = 0; >> } >> >> sub tracepoint_munge($) { >> @@ -2453,7 +2491,6 @@ sub process_file($) { >> } >> $section = $newsection; >> } elsif (/$doc_end/) { >> - >> if (($contents ne "") && ($contents ne "\n")) { >> dump_section($file, $section, xml_escape($contents)); >> $section = $section_default; >> @@ -2494,8 +2531,47 @@ sub process_file($) { >> print STDERR "Warning(${file}:$.): bad line: $_"; >> ++$warnings; >> } >> + } elsif ($state == 5) { # scanning for split parameters >> + >> + # First line (state 1) needs to be a @parameter >> + if ($split_doc_state == 1 && /$doc_split_sect/o) { >> + $section = $1; >> + $contents = $2; >> + if ($contents ne "") { >> + while ((substr($contents, 0, 1) eq " ") || >> + substr($contents, 0, 1) eq "\t") { >> + $contents = substr($contents, 1); >> + } >> + $contents .= "\n"; >> + } >> + $split_doc_state = 2; >> + >> + # End commend */ > > comment Fixed in my next v2. Thanks > >> + } elsif (/$doc_split_end/) { >> + if (($contents ne "") && ($contents ne "\n")) { >> + dump_section($file, $section, xml_escape($contents)); >> + $section = $section_default; >> + $contents = ""; >> + } >> + $state = 3; >> + $split_doc_state = 0; >> + >
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 06:06:45PM -0300, Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula wrote: > Describing arguments at top of a struct definition works fine > for small/medium size structs, but it definitely doesn't work well > for struct with a huge list of elements. > > Keeping the arguments list inside the struct body makes it easier > to maintain the documentation. > ie: > /** > * struct my_struct - short description > * @a: first member > * @b: second member > * > * Longer description > */ > struct my_struct { > int a; > int b; > /** > * @c: This is longer description of C > * > * You can use paragraphs to describe arguments > * using this method. > */ > int c; > }; > > This patch allows the use of this kind of syntax. Only one argument > per comment and user can use how many paragraphs he needs. It should > start with /**, which is already being used by kernel-doc. If those > comment doesn't follow those rules, it will be ignored. > > Signed-off-by: Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula <danilo.cesar@collabora.co.uk> > Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> > Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> > Cc: Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de> > Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org > Cc: intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org> > Cc: dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org> > --- > scripts/kernel-doc | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc > index 9922e66..9bfa8b9 100755 > --- a/scripts/kernel-doc > +++ b/scripts/kernel-doc > @@ -133,6 +133,30 @@ use strict; > # > # All descriptions can be multiline, except the short function description. > # > +# For really longs structs, you can also describe arguments inside the > +# body of the struct. > +# eg. > +# /** > +# * struct my_struct - short description > +# * @a: first member > +# * @b: second member > +# * > +# * Longer description > +# */ > +# struct my_struct { > +# int a; > +# int b; > +# /** > +# * @c: This is longer description of C > +# * > +# * You can use paragraphs to describe arguments > +# * using this method. > +# */ > +# int c; > +# }; > +# > +# This should be use for arguments only. > +# > # You can also add additional sections. When documenting kernel functions you > # should document the "Context:" of the function, e.g. whether the functions > # can be called form interrupts. Unlike other sections you can end it with an > @@ -287,9 +311,19 @@ my $lineprefix=""; > # 2 - scanning field start. > # 3 - scanning prototype. > # 4 - documentation block > +# 5 - gathering documentation outside main block > my $state; > my $in_doc_sect; > > +# Split Doc State > +# 0 - Invalid (Before start or after finish) > +# 1 - Is started (the /** was found inside a struct) > +# 2 - The @parameter header was found, start accepting multi paragraph text. > +# 3 - Finished (the */ was found) > +# 4 - Error - Comment without header was found. Spit a warning as it's not > +# proper kernel-doc and ignore the rest. > +my $split_doc_state; > + > #declaration types: can be > # 'function', 'struct', 'union', 'enum', 'typedef' > my $decl_type; > @@ -304,6 +338,9 @@ my $doc_decl = $doc_com . '(\w+)'; > my $doc_sect = $doc_com . '([' . $doc_special . ']?[\w\s]+):(.*)'; > my $doc_content = $doc_com_body . '(.*)'; > my $doc_block = $doc_com . 'DOC:\s*(.*)?'; > +my $doc_split_start = '^\s*/\*\*\s*$'; > +my $doc_split_sect = '\s*\*\s*(@[\w\s]+):(.*)'; > +my $doc_split_end = '^\s*\*/\s*$'; > > my %constants; > my %parameterdescs; > @@ -2181,6 +2218,7 @@ sub reset_state { > $prototype = ""; > > $state = 0; > + $split_doc_state = 0; > } > > sub tracepoint_munge($) { > @@ -2453,7 +2491,6 @@ sub process_file($) { > } > $section = $newsection; > } elsif (/$doc_end/) { > - > if (($contents ne "") && ($contents ne "\n")) { > dump_section($file, $section, xml_escape($contents)); > $section = $section_default; > @@ -2494,8 +2531,47 @@ sub process_file($) { > print STDERR "Warning(${file}:$.): bad line: $_"; > ++$warnings; > } > + } elsif ($state == 5) { # scanning for split parameters > + > + # First line (state 1) needs to be a @parameter > + if ($split_doc_state == 1 && /$doc_split_sect/o) { > + $section = $1; > + $contents = $2; You're using a mix of tabs and spaces here to indent. Ofc we need 4 spaces for odd indent levels, but for others it shouldn't be required. -Daniel > + if ($contents ne "") { > + while ((substr($contents, 0, 1) eq " ") || > + substr($contents, 0, 1) eq "\t") { > + $contents = substr($contents, 1); > + } > + $contents .= "\n"; > + } > + $split_doc_state = 2; > + > + # End commend */ > + } elsif (/$doc_split_end/) { > + if (($contents ne "") && ($contents ne "\n")) { > + dump_section($file, $section, xml_escape($contents)); > + $section = $section_default; > + $contents = ""; > + } > + $state = 3; > + $split_doc_state = 0; > + > + # Regular text > + } elsif (/$doc_content/) { > + if ($split_doc_state == 2) { > + $contents .= $1 . "\n"; > + } elsif ($split_doc_state == 1) { > + $split_doc_state = 4; > + print STDERR "Warning(${file}:$.): "; > + print STDERR "Incorrect use of kernel-doc format: $_"; > + ++$warnings; > + } > + } > } elsif ($state == 3) { # scanning for function '{' (end of prototype) > - if ($decl_type eq 'function') { > + if (/$doc_split_start/) { > + $state = 5; > + $split_doc_state = 1; > + } elsif ($decl_type eq 'function') { > process_state3_function($_, $file); > } else { > process_state3_type($_, $file); > -- > 2.4.6 >
diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc index 9922e66..9bfa8b9 100755 --- a/scripts/kernel-doc +++ b/scripts/kernel-doc @@ -133,6 +133,30 @@ use strict; # # All descriptions can be multiline, except the short function description. # +# For really longs structs, you can also describe arguments inside the +# body of the struct. +# eg. +# /** +# * struct my_struct - short description +# * @a: first member +# * @b: second member +# * +# * Longer description +# */ +# struct my_struct { +# int a; +# int b; +# /** +# * @c: This is longer description of C +# * +# * You can use paragraphs to describe arguments +# * using this method. +# */ +# int c; +# }; +# +# This should be use for arguments only. +# # You can also add additional sections. When documenting kernel functions you # should document the "Context:" of the function, e.g. whether the functions # can be called form interrupts. Unlike other sections you can end it with an @@ -287,9 +311,19 @@ my $lineprefix=""; # 2 - scanning field start. # 3 - scanning prototype. # 4 - documentation block +# 5 - gathering documentation outside main block my $state; my $in_doc_sect; +# Split Doc State +# 0 - Invalid (Before start or after finish) +# 1 - Is started (the /** was found inside a struct) +# 2 - The @parameter header was found, start accepting multi paragraph text. +# 3 - Finished (the */ was found) +# 4 - Error - Comment without header was found. Spit a warning as it's not +# proper kernel-doc and ignore the rest. +my $split_doc_state; + #declaration types: can be # 'function', 'struct', 'union', 'enum', 'typedef' my $decl_type; @@ -304,6 +338,9 @@ my $doc_decl = $doc_com . '(\w+)'; my $doc_sect = $doc_com . '([' . $doc_special . ']?[\w\s]+):(.*)'; my $doc_content = $doc_com_body . '(.*)'; my $doc_block = $doc_com . 'DOC:\s*(.*)?'; +my $doc_split_start = '^\s*/\*\*\s*$'; +my $doc_split_sect = '\s*\*\s*(@[\w\s]+):(.*)'; +my $doc_split_end = '^\s*\*/\s*$'; my %constants; my %parameterdescs; @@ -2181,6 +2218,7 @@ sub reset_state { $prototype = ""; $state = 0; + $split_doc_state = 0; } sub tracepoint_munge($) { @@ -2453,7 +2491,6 @@ sub process_file($) { } $section = $newsection; } elsif (/$doc_end/) { - if (($contents ne "") && ($contents ne "\n")) { dump_section($file, $section, xml_escape($contents)); $section = $section_default; @@ -2494,8 +2531,47 @@ sub process_file($) { print STDERR "Warning(${file}:$.): bad line: $_"; ++$warnings; } + } elsif ($state == 5) { # scanning for split parameters + + # First line (state 1) needs to be a @parameter + if ($split_doc_state == 1 && /$doc_split_sect/o) { + $section = $1; + $contents = $2; + if ($contents ne "") { + while ((substr($contents, 0, 1) eq " ") || + substr($contents, 0, 1) eq "\t") { + $contents = substr($contents, 1); + } + $contents .= "\n"; + } + $split_doc_state = 2; + + # End commend */ + } elsif (/$doc_split_end/) { + if (($contents ne "") && ($contents ne "\n")) { + dump_section($file, $section, xml_escape($contents)); + $section = $section_default; + $contents = ""; + } + $state = 3; + $split_doc_state = 0; + + # Regular text + } elsif (/$doc_content/) { + if ($split_doc_state == 2) { + $contents .= $1 . "\n"; + } elsif ($split_doc_state == 1) { + $split_doc_state = 4; + print STDERR "Warning(${file}:$.): "; + print STDERR "Incorrect use of kernel-doc format: $_"; + ++$warnings; + } + } } elsif ($state == 3) { # scanning for function '{' (end of prototype) - if ($decl_type eq 'function') { + if (/$doc_split_start/) { + $state = 5; + $split_doc_state = 1; + } elsif ($decl_type eq 'function') { process_state3_function($_, $file); } else { process_state3_type($_, $file);
Describing arguments at top of a struct definition works fine for small/medium size structs, but it definitely doesn't work well for struct with a huge list of elements. Keeping the arguments list inside the struct body makes it easier to maintain the documentation. ie: /** * struct my_struct - short description * @a: first member * @b: second member * * Longer description */ struct my_struct { int a; int b; /** * @c: This is longer description of C * * You can use paragraphs to describe arguments * using this method. */ int c; }; This patch allows the use of this kind of syntax. Only one argument per comment and user can use how many paragraphs he needs. It should start with /**, which is already being used by kernel-doc. If those comment doesn't follow those rules, it will be ignored. Signed-off-by: Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula <danilo.cesar@collabora.co.uk> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> Cc: Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de> Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Cc: intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org> Cc: dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org> --- scripts/kernel-doc | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)