Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] What kernel documentation could be

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1374 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 03:28:40PM +0000, Liam Howlett wrote:
> * Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org> [220626 05:53]:

> > Btw, once we fix the errors from the above checks, one of the things that 
> > could be done in order to avoid noisy doc builds would be to run this 
> > during normal Kernel build, if CONFIG_WERROR is set (and if .git is present
> > at the source build dir):

> > 	./scripts/documentation-file-ref-check --warn
> > 	./scripts/get_abi.pl validate
> > 	./scripts/kernel-doc --none $(git grep kernel-doc $(git ls-files Documentation/|grep -v kernel-doc.rst)|perl -ne 'print "$1\n" if (m/kernel-doc::\s*(\S+)/);'|sort|uniq) 

That last one is quite the command line...

> > aborting the build on such warnings.

> > On my notebook (i5-10210U), the above takes ~8 seconds to run. So, it 
> > won't make much difference at the build time, and doing that would have
> > avoided ~100 warnings during htmldocs build against current linux-next.

> Couldn't we add this to the build bots and ask the authors to fix the
> commits?

There's reports for at least some of this for -next already, at least
for newly introduced warnings.  If we could get 0day or something else
that picks stuff off the lists that would help a lot I think, as would
getting it into the bots that people who like to fix up warnings tend to
be using.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]