On 22.04.2021 09:39, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> On 20 Apr 2021, at 11:27, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 20.04.2021 11:42, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>> On 20 Apr 2021, at 10:14, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 20.04.2021 10:46, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>>>> On 19 Apr 2021, at 12:05, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 19.04.2021 11:12, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>>>>> - */
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> -/*
>>>>>>> - * Reference to a grant entry in a specified domain's grant table.
>>>>>>> - */
>>>>>>> -typedef uint32_t grant_ref_t;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why does this get moved ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> -/*
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> * A grant table comprises a packed array of grant entries in one or more
>>>>>>> * page frames shared between Xen and a guest.
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> * [XEN]: This field is written by Xen and read by the sharing guest.
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> * [GST]: This field is written by the guest and read by Xen.
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * @addtogroup grant_table Grant Tables
>>>>>>> + * @{
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -/*
>>>>>>> - * Version 1 of the grant table entry structure is maintained purely
>>>>>>> - * for backwards compatibility. New guests should use version 2.
>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>> + * Reference to a grant entry in a specified domain's grant table.
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>> +typedef uint32_t grant_ref_t;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... here, past a comment unrelated to it?
>>>>>
>>>>> The comment “Version 1 of the grant table entry […]” was moved on top of
>>>>> the struct grant_entry_v1, in this way
>>>>> Doxygen associate the comment to that structure.
>>>>>
>>>>> The comment “Reference to a grant entry in a specified domain's grant
>>>>> table.” Is moved on top of typedef uint32_t grant_ref_t
>>>>> for the same reason above
>>>>
>>>> But it's the other comment ("A grant table comprises ...") that I
>>>> was asking about.
>>>
>>> I thought it was part of the brief about grant tables, am I wrong? For that
>>> reason I moved it.
>>
>> Well, the comment talks about grant table entries (the layout of which
>> gets defined immediately below, as visible in the original patch), not
>> grant references.
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> Of course this can be reverted back if it is wrong.
>
> I’ve prepared a page with the output of all my commits (some of them are not
> yet in the ML),
> so anyone can have a look on what is the output and how can sphinx+doxygen
> improve
> the quality of the documentation.
>
> Here:
>
> https://luca.fancellu.gitlab.io/xen-docs/hypercall-interfaces/arm64.html
The doc looks fine in this regard, but the C header should remain
properly ordered as well.
>>>>>>> @@ -243,23 +258,27 @@ union grant_entry_v2 {
>>>>>>> * In that case, the frame field has the same semantics as the
>>>>>>> * field of the same name in the V1 entry structure.
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>> + /** @cond skip anonymous struct/union for doxygen */
>>>>>>> struct {
>>>>>>> grant_entry_header_t hdr;
>>>>>>> uint32_t pad0;
>>>>>>> uint64_t frame;
>>>>>>> } full_page;
>>>>>>> + /** @endcond */
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>> * If the grant type is GTF_grant_access and GTF_sub_page is set,
>>>>>>> * @domid is allowed to access bytes [@page_off,@page_off+@length)
>>>>>>> * in frame @frame.
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>> + /** @cond skip anonymous struct/union for doxygen */
>>>>>>> struct {
>>>>>>> grant_entry_header_t hdr;
>>>>>>> uint16_t page_off;
>>>>>>> uint16_t length;
>>>>>>> uint64_t frame;
>>>>>>> } sub_page;
>>>>>>> + /** @endcond */
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>> * If the grant is GTF_transitive, @domid is allowed to use the
>>>>>>> @@ -270,12 +289,14 @@ union grant_entry_v2 {
>>>>>>> * The current version of Xen does not allow transitive grants
>>>>>>> * to be mapped.
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>> + /** @cond skip anonymous struct/union for doxygen */
>>>>>>> struct {
>>>>>>> grant_entry_header_t hdr;
>>>>>>> domid_t trans_domid;
>>>>>>> uint16_t pad0;
>>>>>>> grant_ref_t gref;
>>>>>>> } transitive;
>>>>>>> + /** @endcond */
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While already better than the introduction of strange struct tags,
>>>>>> I'm still not convinced we want this extra clutter (sorry). Plus -
>>>>>> don't these additions mean the sub-structures then won't be
>>>>>> represented in the generated doc, rendering it (partly) useless?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you suggesting to remove the structure from docs?
>>>>
>>>> Just yet I'm not suggesting anything here - I was merely guessing at
>>>> the effect of "@cond" and the associated "skip ..." to mean that this
>>>> construct makes doxygen skip the enclosed section. If that's not the
>>>> effect, then maybe the comment wants rewording? (And then - what does
>>>> @cond mean?)
>>>
>>> Yes you were right, in the documentation the structure grant_entry_v2 won’t
>>> display the
>>> anonymous union.
>>
>> In which case I'm now completely unclear about your prior question.
>
> We have to choose just if the struct is useful even if it’s partially
> documented or if
> it’s better to hide it completely from the docs since it can’t be fully
> documented.
I've never suggested to hide it completely (aiui doing so would
mean widening the scope of the @cond, i.e. there would still be
extra clutter). Instead I was trying to suggest to make sure the
struct gets fully documented despite the absence of struct tags.
Jan
