Re: [PATCH] docs: Make automarkup ready for Sphinx 3.1+

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Thu, 8 Oct 2020 12:31:27 +0100
Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:

> On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 08:03:06AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Thu, 8 Oct 2020 03:47:06 +0100
> > Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> >   
> > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 02:15:24AM +0000, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:  
> > > > > I have a feature request ... could you automarkup NULL as being
> > > > > :c:macro?
> > > > > Or maybe just anything matching \<[[:upper:]_[:digit:]]*\>
> > > > > (i may have my regex syntax confused ... a word composed of any
> > > > > arrangement of upper-case, digits and underscores.)    
> > > > 
> > > > I think what you are suggesting are two separate things.
> > > > 
> > > > For NULL, what you're interested in is that it appears in a monospaced font, as
> > > > if written ``NULL``, right? As I don't think a cross-reference to "the NULL
> > > > macro definition" would make much sense.
> > > > 
> > > > While "anything containing only upper-case, digits and underscores" would
> > > > actually be for cross-referencing to the definition of the macro symbol in
> > > > question, right?    
> > > 
> > > Well, maybe!  What I'd really like is to remove all the markup from
> > > xarray.rst.  Jon managed to get rid of most of it with the (), but
> > > there's still markup on:
> > > 
> > > LONG_MAX
> > > NULL
> > > -EBUSY
> > > true
> > > XA_MARK_[012]
> > > XA_FLAGS_*
> > > ENOMEM
> > > EINVAL
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure there's much that automarkup can do about ``true``, but all
> > > the others fit the all-caps-and-underscore-and-digits pattern.
> > > 
> > > I don't know how much we want errnos to link to anything in particular.
> > > So maybe split these into 'well-known' (eg defined by ANSI C or POSIX)
> > > definitions and things which are local macros:
> > > 
> > > LONG_MAX
> > > NULL
> > > -EBUSY
> > > ENOMEM
> > > EINVAL  
> > 
> > Yeah, a nice improvement would be to auto-markup error codes and NULL as
> > literal blocks.
> >   
> > > 
> > > vs
> > > 
> > > XA_MARK_[012]  
> >   
> > > XA_FLAGS_*  
> > 
> > Actually, things that end with an * (but doesn't start with an *)
> > are good candidates for being literals - although extra care should
> > be taken on such case, as parsing those automatically will likely hit
> > lots of false-positives.  
> 
> I do apologise.  I was trying to be concise in email.  In the actual
> text file, I currently have:
> 
> ``XA_FLAGS_ALLOC``
> ``XA_FLAGS_ALLOC1``
> ``XA_FLAGS_LOCK_IRQ``
> ``XA_FLAGS_LOCK_BH``
> ``XA_FLAGS_TRACK_FREE``

Ah, OK!

> 
> > > I'm willing to add more inline kernel-doc to get this to work better.  
> > 
> > Why? inline kernel-doc should be evaluated just like normal blocks.
> > 
> > Right now, kernel-doc handles constants like NULL and XA_FLAGS_* using
> > two ways:
> > 
> > 	%FOO
> > or
> > 	``FOO``
> > 
> > The regex for those are:
> > 
> > 	my $type_constant = '\b``([^\`]+)``\b';
> > 	my $type_constant2 = '\%([-_\w]+)';  
> 
> Right, but that's in kernel-doc ... in a .rst file, I believe we have
> to use the ``SYMBOL`` syntax.

As you mentioned that you're "willing to add more inline kernel-doc",
I assumed that you were talking about kernel-doc markups at the C files.

Yeah, inside a .rst file, this should be ``SYMBOL``.

As you suggested, the automarkup.py could help with replacing some
of those.

-

Just my two cents: a documentation writer hat, it sounds weird to me to 
mix ``SYMBOL`` (with markup) with NULL (without explicit markup) at the
same file.

Thanks,
Mauro