2018-04-09 12:52 UTC+0200 ~ Markus Heiser <markus.hei...@darmarit.de>
>> Am 09.04.2018 um 12:08 schrieb Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net>:
> [...]
>>> 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.
> latter .. ah, OK .. thanks for clarifying. 
> -- Markus --

As Daniel explained, kernel-doc does not apply in this case, we do not
have the full function prototype for eBPF helpers in the header file.
But to be honest, I didn't even realise kernel-doc was available and
could do something close to what I was looking for, so thanks for your
feedback! :)


Reply via email to