Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 22:39:12 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel-doc: Handle function typedefs without
 asterisks
Message-ID: <20201113223912.GK17076@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20201030144713.201372-1-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <20201030144713.201372-3-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <20201113152106.7b4a07ee@lwn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201113152106.7b4a07ee@lwn.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 03:21:06PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 15:47:13 +0100
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> > 
> > Example of typedef that was not parsed by kernel-doc:
> > 
> >   typedef void (ObjectUnparent)(Object *obj);
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> 
> So as you've undoubtedly noticed, reading those kernel-doc regexes is ... a
> wee bit on the painful side.  Trying to compare two of them in a patch to
> figure out what you have done is even worse.  I suspect we want these
> patches, but can you please supply a changelog that describes the change? 

Better ... can we have a test suite for the regexes and make patches to
them include updates to the test suite?  They have clearly passed the
point of human understanding ;-)