On 23/2/21 3:10 am, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Aditya Srivastava <yashsri...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> There are files in kernel, which use 'typedef struct' syntax for defining
>> struct. For eg, include/linux/zstd.h, drivers/scsi/megaraid/mega_common.h,
>> etc.
>> However, kernel-doc still does not support it, causing a parsing error.
>>
>> For eg, running scripts/kernel-doc -none on include/linux/zstd.h emits:
>> "error: Cannot parse struct or union!"
>>
>> Add support for parsing it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aditya Srivastava <yashsri...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> scripts/kernel-doc | 12 ++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc
>> index 8b5bc7bf4bb8..46e904dc3f87 100755
>> --- a/scripts/kernel-doc
>> +++ b/scripts/kernel-doc
>> @@ -1201,12 +1201,20 @@ sub dump_union($$) {
>> sub dump_struct($$) {
>> my $x = shift;
>> my $file = shift;
>> + my $decl_type;
>> + my $members;
>>
>> if ($x =~
>> /(struct|union)\s+(\w+)\s*\{(.*)\}(\s*(__packed|__aligned|____cacheline_aligned_in_smp|____cacheline_aligned|__attribute__\s*\(\([a-z0-9,_\s\(\)]*\)\)))*/)
>> {
>> - my $decl_type = $1;
>> + $decl_type = $1;
>> $declaration_name = $2;
>> - my $members = $3;
>> + $members = $3;
>> + } elsif ($x =~
>> /typedef\s+(struct|union)\s*\{(.*)\}(?:\s*(?:__packed|__aligned|____cacheline_aligned_in_smp|____cacheline_aligned|__attribute__\s*\(\([a-z0-9,_\s\(\)]*\)\)))*\s*(\w*)\s*;/)
>> {
>
> So this isn't your fault, but these regexes are really getting out of
> hand. I would *really* like to see some effort made into making this
> code more understandable / maintainable as we tweak this stuff. So:
>
> - Splitting out the common part, as suggested by Lukas, would be really
> useful. That would also avoid the problem of only occurrence being
> edited the next tine we add a new qualifier.
>
> - Splitting out other subsections of the regex and giving them symbolic
> names would also help.
>
> - We really could use some comments before these branches saying what
> they are doing; it is *not* obvious from the code.
>
> See what I'm getting at here?
>
Yep.
Thanks for the feedback Lukas and Jonathan. I'll get back with a v2
for the patch.
Thanks
Aditya
