Re: [PATCH] doc: convert printk-formats.txt to rst

[Joe Perches]

On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 13:06 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> Well ... my sense is that lib/vsprintf.c should remain the canonical
> documentation.

I agree.

> Anyone working on the code has the docs all together in
> one file. If it helps the .rst file to reformat the comments into
> kernel-doc, that's fine, but it shouldn't reduce the detail that is
> present, IMO. Now, expanding on it in printk-formats.rst is certainly
> a great idea, but I don't think it should come at the expense of
> someone just reading through vsprintf.c. That said, I can certainly
> see that redundancy is annoying, and it's possible for
> printk-formats.rst and vsprintf.c get get out of sync, but that
> doesn't seem to be a new problem.

Nor has it been a real problem in practice.

There is a comment in vsprintf.c that tells people
to update the doc.

 * ** Please update also Documentation/printk-formats.txt when making changes **
> 
> I'd be curious to see what Jon or Joe think about this.
> 
> (Perhaps the best first step would be to leave vsprintf.c as-is
> without kernel-doc-ification?)

I think adding kernel-doc to vsprintf.c is unnecessary.

Outside of the documentation, what could be useful is for
someone to add a tool to verify %p<foo> extension to
the typeof address actually passed as an argument.