On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 03:37:10 -0700, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 16:34:42 +0100
> Stephen Kitt <steve@sk2.org> wrote:
> 
> > This script allows sysctl documentation to be checked against the
> > kernel source code, to identify missing or obsolete entries. Running
> > it against 5.5 shows for example that sysctl/kernel.rst has two
> > obsolete entries and is missing 52 entries.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Kitt <steve@sk2.org>
> > ---
> > Changes since v2:
> > * drop UTF-8 characters
> > * fix license identifier
> > * fix example invocation to include path as well as table
> > 
> > v2 was the initial submission (in v2 of the sysctl/kernel.rst patch
> > set).  
> 
> This seems like a useful thing to have, so I've applied it.  It would be
> rather more useful, though, with a bit of ... wait for it ...
> documentation.  Even just an example command line in the header comments
> would be a good place to start.  Care to send a followup? :)

The committed script has this:

+# Example invocation:
+#	scripts/check-sysctl-docs -vtable="kernel" \
+#		Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst \
+#		$(git grep -l register_sysctl_)
+#
+# Specify -vdebug=1 to see debugging information

but I agree that it needs more documentation ;-). In particular, I need to
explain what the script expects in terms of document layout...

Where would be the best place? In admin-guide/sysctl/index.rst, as a “how to
maintain these files” section, or in a separate document, or in the script
headers?

Regards,

Stephen