Am 06.09.2016 um 15:36 schrieb Jonathan Corbet <cor...@lwn.net>: > On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:43:18 +0300 > Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Jonathan Corbet <cor...@lwn.net> wrote: >>> As far as I can tell, the handling of "..." arguments has never worked >>> right, so any documentation provided was ignored in favor of "variable >>> arguments." This makes kernel-doc handle "@...:" as documented. It does >>> *not* fix spots in kerneldoc comments that don't follow that convention, >>> but they are no more broken than before. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <cor...@lwn.net> >>> --- >>> scripts/kernel-doc | 3 ++- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc >>> index c681e8f0ecc2..e6c52ab938fd 100755 >>> --- a/scripts/kernel-doc >>> +++ b/scripts/kernel-doc >>> @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ my $doc_com_body = '\s*\* ?'; >>> my $doc_decl = $doc_com . '(\w+)'; >>> # @params and a strictly limited set of supported section names >>> my $doc_sect = $doc_com . >>> - '\s*(\@\w+|description|context|returns?|notes?|examples?)\s*:(.*)'; >>> + '\s*(\@[.\w]+|description|context|returns?|notes?|examples?)\s*:(.*)'; >>> >> >> So this will now accept "@foo.bar.baz:" too, right? Should it be >> something like this instead? >> >> '\s*(\@\w+|\@\.\.\.|description|context|returns?|notes?|examples?)\s*:(.*)'; > > That works too. > > I had a sort of vision of catching the "args..." notation that a lot of > kerneldoc comments use and doing the right thing, but ran out of patience > before getting it to work. There are times when I find Markus's python > kernel-doc replacement tempting...
Feel free to contact me if you want to see a RFC. OT but BTW: Does sparse parse macros, or did sparse precompile? I mean, are macros objects of sparse's AST or does the AST only contain C objects? Sorry if my question is dump, I haven't had time to take a serious look on sparse. -- Markus -- > Maybe I'll beat my head against that > wall one more time when I get a chance and, failing that, just use the > above. > > Thanks, > > jon
