Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] kernel-doc: fix typedef function parser

From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
Cc: Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] kernel-doc: fix typedef function parser
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 11:18:46 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201028111846.582c5b20@lwn.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1603792384.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:20:35 +0100
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> wrote:

> This small series contain the latest version of the typedef parsing
> fixes that we've been discussing as:
> 
> 	[PATCH v3 01/56] scripts: kernel-doc: fix typedef parsing
> 
> As I said there, at least while discussing it, I opted to split the
> patch in two.
> 
> The first one changes the regex;
> The second one is just a cleanup that splits the 3 arguments into 3
> vars.
> 
> From my side, I'm not 100% confident if the second patch is
> worth or not. 
> 
> The advantage of it is that it makes easier to read the regex. 
> It also also makes clearer about the differences between
> the two typedef regex'es that are used there. 
> 
> On the other hand, using a site like regex101.com to
> test it is harder, as one needs to copy-and-paste 3 expressions
> instead of just one.
> 
> So, when appliying, feel free to decide to either:
> 
> 	-  merge both as-is (two separate patches);
> 	-  fold them into a single patch;
> 	- drop the second patch.

I've gone ahead and applied them both.  Anything that makes the kernel-doc
script more understandable and maintainable is a step in the right
direction, I think.

Thanks,

jon