Em Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:29:01 +0200 Markus Heiser <markus.heiser at darmarit.de> escreveu:
> Am 20.07.2016 um 13:27 schrieb Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>: > > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Markus Heiser > > <markus.heiser at darmarit.de> wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, hi Mauro, > >> > >> Am 19.07.2016 um 17:32 schrieb Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>: > >> > >>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at > >>> ffwll.ch> wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Markus Heiser > >>>> <markus.heiser at darmarit.de> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Am 19.07.2016 um 13:42 schrieb Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at > >>>>> ffwll.ch>: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Unfortunately warnings generated after parsing in sphinx can end up > >>>>>> with entirely bogus files and line numbers as sources. Strangely for > >>>>>> outright errors this is not a problem. Trying to convert warnings to > >>>>>> errors also doesn't fix it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The only way to get useful output out of sphinx to be able to root > >>>>>> cause the error seems to be enabling keep_warnings, which inserts > >>>>>> a System Message into the actual output. Not pretty at all, but I > >>>>>> don't really want to fix up core rst/sphinx code, and this gets the job > >>>>>> done meanwhile. > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Daniel, > >>>>> > >>>>> may I misunderstood you. Did you really get more or different warnings > >>>>> if you include them into the output with "keep_warnings"? > >>>>> > >>>>> The documentation says: > >>>>> > >>>>> "Regardless of this setting, warnings are always written > >>>>> to the standard error stream when sphinx-build is run." > >>>>> > >>>>> see > >>>>> http://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/stable/config.html#confval-keep_warnings > >>>>> > >>>>> Or did you not run "make cleandoc" first? Sphinx caches the doctrees > >>>>> and reports markup errors only when you rebuild the cache. > >>>>> The cache is also rebuild if you touch one of the source, e.g. > >>>>> the drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c or the rst-file where the drm_crtc.c > >>>>> is referred by a kernel-doc directive .. these dependence sometimes > >>>>> confuse me .. when I missed log messages, I clean the cache e.g. by > >>>>> target cleandocs. > >>>> > >>>> Yes I'm aware that sphinx it's WARNINGs when doing a partially > >>>> rebuild, this is something entirely different. I didn't get more or > >>>> less warnings this way, but keep_warning = True seems to be the only > >>>> way to get reasonable information about them. Without that I get > >>>> warnings (for included kernel-doc) where the source file is the .rst > >>>> file that pulls in the kernel doc, and the line number is entirely > >>>> bogus (often past the end of the containing .rst). > >>>> > >>>> With this I can at least then open the generated .html file, search > >>>> for the System Message and figure out (by looking at the surrounding > >>>> context) where the error really is from. > >>>> > >>>> Strangely this only happens for WARNING. If I manged the kerneldoc > >>>> enough to upset sphinx into generating an ERROR, the line numbers and > >>>> source files are correct. > >>>> > >>>> See patch 2/2 in this series for examples of such WARNINGs: Mostly > >>>> it's unbalanced _ * or `` annotations that confuse sphinx/rst a bit. > >>>> If you want to play around with the gpu sphinx conversion to reproduce > >>>> these locall you can grab the drm-intel-nightly branch from > >>>> > >>>> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel > >>>> > >>>> It already includes Jon's latest docs-next branch. > >>> > >>> btw, I couldn't check this since I didn't figure out how to intercept > >>> the parsed rst tree and view it, but I think what's going on is: > >>> - The source file for these warnings is .rst file containing the > >>> kernel-doc directive. This seems to be a bug in sphinx/docutils since > >>> we never use that file name when appending files at all. > >>> - The line number looks like it's just counting the inserted > >>> kernel-doc lines as part of the containing .rst file. At least > >>> changing the content_offset in nested_parse seems to suggest that this > >>> is the start line (e.g. adding 10k there results in all bogus WARNING > >>> line numbers being increased by 10k). And adding more blank lines at > >>> the beginning of the inserted kernel-doc rst also increases the > >>> reported lines. But not when inserting blank lines at the end (i.e. it > >>> seems like it's being reset after each directive again). > >> > >> Thanks for the explanation. > >> > >>> All that suggest to me this is a sphinx-internal issue, and google > >>> sugggests there's lots of errata around line reporting. Hence why I > >>> went with this. But of course a proper fix would be awesome! Just a > >>> bit outside of what I think I can pull off ... > >> > >> It is not really a sphinx-internal issue (rather a drawback of the design). > >> The state machine needs a system reporter that takes the origin file > >> and it's line numbers as context. > >> > >> I send a fix to Jon: > >> > >> http://mid.gmane.org/1469011138-12448-1-git-send-email-markus.heiser at > >> darmarit.de > >> > >> could you test this patch and send us some feedback / thanks. > > > > Yup, seems to work nicely. Thanks a lot for fixing this. Jon, pls > > drop/revert my hack and take Markus' proper fix instead. > > > >> One remark: The line numbers are not "perfect". This is due to the fact, > >> that the kernel-doc parser could not generate "perfect" line numbers > >> or all extracted doc-items .. daniel knows this ;) > >> > >> If you did not find the cause of a warning in the line number given > >> by the warning, take a look one line or one block above and/or below, > >> mostly you will see the cause. > > > > Hm, I think I still have a few off-by-one in the kernel-doc line > > numbers. But tbh with all the intermediate layers I wasn't sure which > > one is wrong and where it would need to be fixed up. But it seems like > > for a bunch of cases kernel-doc reports 1 line too much. > > > > If someone with more insight into all this would try to improve this, > > I think it'd be awesome ;-) > > It will never be "perfect" ... as far as I know, Sphinx (docutils) will > always report on the block level, not on line level of the rst-origin. Well, with kernel-doc and DocBook, the error reports were always with some offset, but I don't think that this is a big issue. I mean: if it points to the right documentation markup block at the source file, it is not hard to identify where the bugs are. > > The off-by-on could be fixed, I plan to revise the kernel-doc perl script, > when > we know, what we need for man-pages [1], but I will wait for Jon's and Jani's > thoughts about man pages first. > > [1] http://mid.gmane.org/2CE565E6-19D4-4835-9A32-2FCAE754B357 at darmarit.de > > -- Markus -- > > > > > Cheers, Daniel > > -- > > Daniel Vetter > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch > Thanks, Mauro
