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

Reply via email to