From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 625C4C433E6 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:18:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C1764F69 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:18:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232585AbhCRSSY (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:18:24 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48336 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232412AbhCRSST (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:18:19 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:3a1::42]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A78BC06174A; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:18:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:281:8300:104d::5f6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 181CD2C4; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:18:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 181CD2C4 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1616091499; bh=D6+NW32QhsSkiW9Ttc6kcoqu/iMNIPHgo6s+YdkpRNA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=HgPD5ZwmH755X2ZgoYdrsMiW0iDui3F4GJMFBClm4A+IY2kD3oPGUeIPvG0jOfHQE QibBHM5GyOnNEqJvriRmgZIHnyfoMOzExLX2TOafaTqM6hyU18PfjDDMbYjS5SI805 85dOU+FPnSwlG7GpdMJIXmv8rucBUNRBQzG3l9A1kzatbXVWi3hiGWCb/2YgpGlLS2 PoH4M85XJGbvxO+b6saMsGX1yP5ZwxwPctsQstBzm2TdljkRy5OycOJo/kYmq/xKZs 3u+9r4bx7S83rYOWu+kHYcipjcTE76kD941rGVbG7sD9OHG2J15o4SxMryEa8lZXmB EwLrq7rL0tKYQ== From: Jonathan Corbet To: Lukas Bulwahn Cc: Aditya , Markus Heiser , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [RFC] scripts: kernel-doc: avoid warnings due to initial commented lines in file In-Reply-To: References: <20210309125324.4456-1-yashsri421@gmail.com> <8959bf29-9ee1-6a1d-da18-f440232864f3@darmarit.de> <871rcg2p8g.fsf@meer.lwn.net> <878s6kto3g.fsf@meer.lwn.net> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:18:18 -0600 Message-ID: <87o8fgpbpx.fsf@meer.lwn.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Lukas Bulwahn writes: > Yeah, and as this line-counting is really just a poor man's > heuristics, we might just be better to really turn this heuristics > into a dedicated cleanup warning script, then we can check for more > indicators, such as "does it contain the word Copyright" somewhere in > the kernel-doc comment, which tells us even more that this is not a > kernel-doc as we would expect it. I really don't think we need that kind of heuristic. The format of kerneldoc comments is fairly rigid; it shouldn't be too hard to pick out the /** comments that don't fit that format, right? Am I missing something there? Thanks, jon From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6374BC4332B for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:18:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03FEB64F1D for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:18:23 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 03FEB64F1D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-mentees-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC6F60672; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:18:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X4rAhLjKgQur; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:18:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010:104::8cd3:938]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD82260643; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:18:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D874C000A; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:18:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE597C0001 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:18:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B597F4EE06 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:18:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PK83h_fQ8I6F for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:18:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:3a1::42]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F102C4EE01 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:18:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:281:8300:104d::5f6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 181CD2C4; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:18:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 181CD2C4 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1616091499; bh=D6+NW32QhsSkiW9Ttc6kcoqu/iMNIPHgo6s+YdkpRNA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=HgPD5ZwmH755X2ZgoYdrsMiW0iDui3F4GJMFBClm4A+IY2kD3oPGUeIPvG0jOfHQE QibBHM5GyOnNEqJvriRmgZIHnyfoMOzExLX2TOafaTqM6hyU18PfjDDMbYjS5SI805 85dOU+FPnSwlG7GpdMJIXmv8rucBUNRBQzG3l9A1kzatbXVWi3hiGWCb/2YgpGlLS2 PoH4M85XJGbvxO+b6saMsGX1yP5ZwxwPctsQstBzm2TdljkRy5OycOJo/kYmq/xKZs 3u+9r4bx7S83rYOWu+kHYcipjcTE76kD941rGVbG7sD9OHG2J15o4SxMryEa8lZXmB EwLrq7rL0tKYQ== From: Jonathan Corbet To: Lukas Bulwahn Subject: Re: [RFC] scripts: kernel-doc: avoid warnings due to initial commented lines in file In-Reply-To: References: <20210309125324.4456-1-yashsri421@gmail.com> <8959bf29-9ee1-6a1d-da18-f440232864f3@darmarit.de> <871rcg2p8g.fsf@meer.lwn.net> <878s6kto3g.fsf@meer.lwn.net> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:18:18 -0600 Message-ID: <87o8fgpbpx.fsf@meer.lwn.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Markus Heiser , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Aditya X-BeenThere: linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-kernel-mentees-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Sender: "Linux-kernel-mentees" Lukas Bulwahn writes: > Yeah, and as this line-counting is really just a poor man's > heuristics, we might just be better to really turn this heuristics > into a dedicated cleanup warning script, then we can check for more > indicators, such as "does it contain the word Copyright" somewhere in > the kernel-doc comment, which tells us even more that this is not a > kernel-doc as we would expect it. I really don't think we need that kind of heuristic. The format of kerneldoc comments is fairly rigid; it shouldn't be too hard to pick out the /** comments that don't fit that format, right? Am I missing something there? Thanks, jon _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees