On 04/09/2018 11:35 AM, Markus Heiser wrote: > >> Am 09.04.2018 um 11:25 schrieb Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net>: >> >> On 04/09/2018 11:21 AM, Markus Heiser wrote: >> [...] >>> Do we really need another kernel-doc parser? >>> >>> ./scripts/kernel-doc include/uapi/linux/bpf.h >>> >>> should already do the job (producing .rst). For more infos, take a look at >> >> This has absolutely zero to do with kernel-doc, but rather producing >> a description of BPF helper function that are later assembled into an >> actual man-page that BPF program developers (user space) can use. > > May I completely misunderstood you, so correct my if I'am wrong: > > - ./scripts/bpf_helpers_doc.py : produces reST markup from C-comments > - ./scripts/kerne-doc : produces reST markup from C-comments > > IMO: both are doing the same job, so why not using kernel-doc?
They are not really doing the same job, in bpf_helpers_doc.py case you don't want the whole header rendered, but just a fraction of it, that is, the single big comment which describes all BPF helper functions that a BPF program developer has available to use in user space - aka the entries in the __BPF_FUNC_MAPPER() macro; I also doubt the latter would actually qualify in kdoc context as some sort of a function description. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html