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;
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@gmail.com>
Cc:     yashsri421@gmail.com, lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: kernel-doc: add warning for comment not
 following kernel-doc syntax
In-Reply-To: <20210329092945.13152-1-yashsri421@gmail.com>
References: <20210329092945.13152-1-yashsri421@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Mar 2021 07:56:37 -0600
Message-ID: <87czvit65m.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@gmail.com> writes:

> Currently, kernel-doc start parsing the comment as a kernel-doc comment if
> it starts with '/**', but does not take into account if the content inside
> the comment too, adheres with the expected format.
> This results in unexpected and unclear warnings for the user.
>
> E.g., running scripts/kernel-doc -none mm/memcontrol.c emits:
> "mm/memcontrol.c:961: warning: expecting prototype for do not fallback to current(). Prototype was for get_mem_cgroup_from_current() instead"
>
> Here kernel-doc parses the corresponding comment as a kernel-doc comment
> and expects prototype for it in the next lines, and as a result causing
> this warning.
>
> Provide a clearer warning message to the users regarding the same, if the
> content inside the comment does not follow the kernel-doc expected format.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@gmail.com>
> ---
>  scripts/kernel-doc | 17 +++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

This is definitely a capability we want, but I really don't think that
we can turn it on by default - for now.  Experience shows that if you
create a blizzard of warnings, nobody sees any of them.  How many
warnings does this add to a full docs build?

For now I think we need a flag to turn this warning on, which perhaps
can be set for a W=1 build.

Thanks,

jon