Re: [PATCH 04/14] ABI: better identificate tables

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Thu, 20 Jun 2019 18:29:45 +0200
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:

> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:20:34AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Thu, 20 Jun 2019 14:54:13 +0200
> > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> >   
> > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 02:01:50PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:  
> > > > > I don't know when "Description" and "RST-Description" would be used.
> > > > > Why not just parse "Description" like rst text and if things are "messy"
> > > > > we fix them up as found, like you did with the ":" here?  It doesn't
> > > > > have to be complex, we can always fix them up after-the-fact if new
> > > > > stuff gets added that doesn't quite parse properly.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Just like we do for most kernel-doc formatting :)    
> > > > 
> > > > But kernel-doc has a documented format, which was sort of the point I
> > > > was trying to make. If the new get_abi.pl scripts expects a colon I
> > > > think it should be mentioned somewhere (e.g. Documentation/ABI/README).
> > > > 
> > > > Grepping for attribute entries in linux-next still reveals a number
> > > > descriptions that still lack that colon and use varying formatting. More
> > > > are bound to be added later, but perhaps that's ok depending on what
> > > > you're aiming at here.    
> > > 
> > > I'm aiming for "good enough" to start with, and then we can work through
> > > the exceptions.
> > > 
> > > But given that Mauro hasn't resent the script that does the conversion
> > > of the files, I don't know if that will even matter... {hint}  
> > 
> > It sounds I missed something... are you expecting a new version?   
> 
> Yes, the last round of patches didn't have a SPDX header on the script,
> so I couldn't add it to the tree :(

I could swear I sent you a version with SPDX on it... anyway, I'm
re-sending the hole thing. The SPDX header addition is on a separate
patch.


Thanks,
Mauro