Re: [PATCH v6 35/80] docs: fs: fscrypt.rst: get rid of :c:type: tags
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 07:32:07 +0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > That will apply to most (maybe all) of the structures mentioned in this > > file. > > I expected that if the documentation system now automatically recognizes > > 'struct foo', then it would render it in code font even when 'struct foo' > > isn't > > documented. Any particular reason why that isn't the case? Not like I care > > much myself, but it's a bit unexpected and it means this change actually > > makes > > the rendered documentation look worse... > > Yeah, I agree that using monospaced fonts on this case too would > be nice. The C domain actually uses italic monospaced fonts for > broken XREFs. > > I suspect that changing this at automarkup.py would be simple, but > not sure if it would be safe. > > Jon can tell more about that, as he's the author of automarkup, > but I suspect that the reason for the current behavior is to avoid > false-positives. Automarkup has always behaved that way because ... well, because nobody got around to changing it. I don't see any reason not to use a monospace font for such things, just without a link; shouldn't be a problem to do. I'll see if I can't get to it once things stabilize a bit. Thanks, jon
Re: [PATCH v6 35/80] docs: fs: fscrypt.rst: get rid of :c:type: tags
Em Thu, 15 Oct 2020 09:36:05 -0700 Eric Biggers escreveu: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:32:07AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > On the other hand, if one finds a valid "struct foo" using normal > > fonts, this would mean that either the doc is outdated, mentioning > > an struct that were removed/renamed or that there's a missing > > kernel-doc markup. > > > > In any case, the fix is to simply fix the kernel-doc markup for > > struct foo. > > > > I guess in the future automarkup.py could issue a warning in > > order to warn about missing cross-references, perhaps when > > W=1 or W=2 is used. > > Well, most structs that fscrypt.rst refers to are defined in > include/uapi/linux/fscrypt.h. The whole fscrypt UAPI, including the fields of > these structs, is documented in fscrypt.rst. So I didn't really intend the > fscrypt UAPI structs to have kerneldoc comments, as people are supposed to > refer > to the documentation in fscrypt.rst instead. We could have both, but it > feels a > bit redundant. Yeah, we do the same on V4L: the uAPI doesn't use kernel-docs. It is documented, instead, at ReST files. In any case, if all structs are documented, automarkup should be using monospaced fonts and be generating cross-references. If not, the regular expressions there may need tweaks ;-) Thanks, Mauro
Re: [PATCH v6 35/80] docs: fs: fscrypt.rst: get rid of :c:type: tags
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:32:07AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > On the other hand, if one finds a valid "struct foo" using normal > fonts, this would mean that either the doc is outdated, mentioning > an struct that were removed/renamed or that there's a missing > kernel-doc markup. > > In any case, the fix is to simply fix the kernel-doc markup for > struct foo. > > I guess in the future automarkup.py could issue a warning in > order to warn about missing cross-references, perhaps when > W=1 or W=2 is used. Well, most structs that fscrypt.rst refers to are defined in include/uapi/linux/fscrypt.h. The whole fscrypt UAPI, including the fields of these structs, is documented in fscrypt.rst. So I didn't really intend the fscrypt UAPI structs to have kerneldoc comments, as people are supposed to refer to the documentation in fscrypt.rst instead. We could have both, but it feels a bit redundant. - Eric
Re: [PATCH v6 35/80] docs: fs: fscrypt.rst: get rid of :c:type: tags
Em Wed, 14 Oct 2020 14:59:54 -0700 Eric Biggers escreveu: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 08:59:07AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > [PATCH v6.1 35/80] docs: fs: fscrypt.rst: get rid of :c:type: tags > > > > The :c:type: tag has problems with Sphinx 3.x, as structs > > there should be declared with c:struct. > > > > So, remove them, relying at automarkup.py extension to > > convert them into cross-references. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab > > "relying at" => "relying on". > > Otherwise looks fine, you can add: > > Reviewed-by: Eric Biggers Thank you for reviewing it! > I do still wonder about your comment though: > > > It should be said that, currently, if there's no documentation for "foo", > > automarkup will just keep using the regular text font, keeping the text > > untouched. > > That will apply to most (maybe all) of the structures mentioned in this file. > I expected that if the documentation system now automatically recognizes > 'struct foo', then it would render it in code font even when 'struct foo' > isn't > documented. Any particular reason why that isn't the case? Not like I care > much myself, but it's a bit unexpected and it means this change actually makes > the rendered documentation look worse... Yeah, I agree that using monospaced fonts on this case too would be nice. The C domain actually uses italic monospaced fonts for broken XREFs. I suspect that changing this at automarkup.py would be simple, but not sure if it would be safe. Jon can tell more about that, as he's the author of automarkup, but I suspect that the reason for the current behavior is to avoid false-positives. I mean, if "struct foo" symbol doesn't exist at the C domain, this might mean that the parser is doing something wrong. So, a more conservative approach is to keep the string as-is. On the other hand, if one finds a valid "struct foo" using normal fonts, this would mean that either the doc is outdated, mentioning an struct that were removed/renamed or that there's a missing kernel-doc markup. In any case, the fix is to simply fix the kernel-doc markup for struct foo. I guess in the future automarkup.py could issue a warning in order to warn about missing cross-references, perhaps when W=1 or W=2 is used. Thanks, Mauro
Re: [PATCH v6 35/80] docs: fs: fscrypt.rst: get rid of :c:type: tags
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 08:59:07AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > [PATCH v6.1 35/80] docs: fs: fscrypt.rst: get rid of :c:type: tags > > The :c:type: tag has problems with Sphinx 3.x, as structs > there should be declared with c:struct. > > So, remove them, relying at automarkup.py extension to > convert them into cross-references. > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab "relying at" => "relying on". Otherwise looks fine, you can add: Reviewed-by: Eric Biggers I do still wonder about your comment though: > It should be said that, currently, if there's no documentation for "foo", > automarkup will just keep using the regular text font, keeping the text > untouched. That will apply to most (maybe all) of the structures mentioned in this file. I expected that if the documentation system now automatically recognizes 'struct foo', then it would render it in code font even when 'struct foo' isn't documented. Any particular reason why that isn't the case? Not like I care much myself, but it's a bit unexpected and it means this change actually makes the rendered documentation look worse... - Eric
Re: [PATCH v6 35/80] docs: fs: fscrypt.rst: get rid of :c:type: tags
Em Tue, 13 Oct 2020 10:25:12 -0700
Eric Biggers escreveu:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 01:53:50PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > The :c:type: tag has problems with Sphinx 3.x, as structs
> > there should be declared with c:struct.
> >
> > So, remove them, relying at automarkup.py extension to
> > convert them into cross-references.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>
> I left some comments on v5 which weren't addressed.
>
> - Eric
Sorry, I missed your reply. I'm dropping fscrypt.rst changes
that were on this patch:
[PATCH v6 23/80] docs: get rid of :c:type explicit declarations for
structs
and replacing with the enclosed one that should be addressing
your issues.
Thanks,
Mauro
[PATCH v6.1 35/80] docs: fs: fscrypt.rst: get rid of :c:type: tags
The :c:type: tag has problems with Sphinx 3.x, as structs
there should be declared with c:struct.
So, remove them, relying at automarkup.py extension to
convert them into cross-references.
Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab
diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/fscrypt.rst
b/Documentation/filesystems/fscrypt.rst
index 423c5a0daf45..44b67ebd6e40 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/fscrypt.rst
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/fscrypt.rst
@@ -436,9 +436,9 @@ FS_IOC_SET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY
The FS_IOC_SET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY ioctl sets an encryption policy on an
empty directory or verifies that a directory or regular file already
-has the specified encryption policy. It takes in a pointer to a
-:c:type:`struct fscrypt_policy_v1` or a :c:type:`struct
-fscrypt_policy_v2`, defined as follows::
+has the specified encryption policy. It takes in a pointer to
+struct fscrypt_policy_v1 or struct fscrypt_policy_v2, defined as
+follows::
#define FSCRYPT_POLICY_V1 0
#define FSCRYPT_KEY_DESCRIPTOR_SIZE 8
@@ -464,11 +464,11 @@ fscrypt_policy_v2`, defined as follows::
This structure must be initialized as follows:
-- ``version`` must be FSCRYPT_POLICY_V1 (0) if the struct is
- :c:type:`fscrypt_policy_v1` or FSCRYPT_POLICY_V2 (2) if the struct
- is :c:type:`fscrypt_policy_v2`. (Note: we refer to the original
- policy version as "v1", though its version code is really 0.) For
- new encrypted directories, use v2 policies.
+- ``version`` must be FSCRYPT_POLICY_V1 (0) if
+ struct fscrypt_policy_v1 is used or FSCRYPT_POLICY_V2 (2) if
+ struct fscrypt_policy_v2 is used. (Note: we refer to the original
+ policy version as "v1", though its version code is really 0.)
+ For new encrypted directories, use v2 policies.
- ``contents_encryption_mode`` and ``filenames_encryption_mode`` must
be set to constants from which identify the
@@ -508,9 +508,9 @@ This structure must be initialized as follows:
replaced with ``master_key_identifier``, which is longer and cannot
be arbitrarily chosen. Instead, the key must first be added using
`FS_IOC_ADD_ENCRYPTION_KEY`_. Then, the ``key_spec.u.identifier``
- the kernel returned in the :c:type:`struct fscrypt_add_key_arg` must
- be used as the ``master_key_identifier`` in the :c:type:`struct
- fscrypt_policy_v2`.
+ the kernel returned in the struct fscrypt_add_key_arg must
+ be used as the ``master_key_identifier`` in
+ struct fscrypt_policy_v2.
If the file is not yet encrypted, then FS_IOC_SET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY
verifies that the file is an empty directory. If so, the specified
@@ -590,7 +590,7 @@ FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY_EX
The FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY_EX ioctl retrieves the encryption
policy, if any, for a directory or regular file. No additional
permissions are required beyond the ability to open the file. It
-takes in a pointer to a :c:type:`struct fscrypt_get_policy_ex_arg`,
+takes in a pointer to struct fscrypt_get_policy_ex_arg,
defined as follows::
struct fscrypt_get_policy_ex_arg {
@@ -637,9 +637,8 @@ The FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY ioctl can also retrieve the
encryption policy, if any, for a directory or regular file. However,
unlike `FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY_EX`_,
FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY only supports the original policy
-version. It takes in a pointer directly to a :c:type:`struct
-fscrypt_policy_v1` rather than a :c:type:`struct
-fscrypt_get_policy_ex_arg`.
+version. It takes in a pointer directly to struct fscrypt_policy_v1
+rather than struct fscrypt_get_policy_ex_arg.
The error codes for FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY are the same as those
for FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY_EX, except that
@@ -680,8 +679,7 @@ the filesystem, making all files on the filesystem which
were
encrypted using that key appear "unlocked", i.e. in plaintext form.
It can be executed on any file or directory on the target filesystem,
but using the filesystem's root directory is recommended. It takes in
-a pointer to a :c:type:`struct fscrypt_add_key_arg`, defined as
-follows::
+a pointer to struct fscrypt_add_key_arg, defined as follows::
struct fscrypt_add_key_arg {
struct
Re: [PATCH v6 35/80] docs: fs: fscrypt.rst: get rid of :c:type: tags
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 01:53:50PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > The :c:type: tag has problems with Sphinx 3.x, as structs > there should be declared with c:struct. > > So, remove them, relying at automarkup.py extension to > convert them into cross-references. > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab I left some comments on v5 which weren't addressed. - Eric
