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

[Tobin C. Harding]

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 01:22:37PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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.

Ok, thanks. Will re-spin without kernel-doc-ification in vsprintf.c

> 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.

This sounds interesting to work no. At first glance I have no idea how
one would go about this. Some form of static analysis would be a good
place to start, right? I'd like to allocate some cycles to this, any
pointers most appreciated.

thanks,
Tobin.