Re: [PATCH 5/5] docs: improve the HTML formatting of kerneldoc comments

From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Date: Thu Oct 06 2022 - 01:53:46 EST

Em Wed, 05 Oct 2022 19:58:39 +0300
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:

> On Tue, 04 Oct 2022, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Make a few changes to cause functions documented by kerneldoc to stand out
> > better in the rendered documentation. Specifically, change kernel-doc to
> > put the description section into a ".. container::" section, then add a bit
> > of CSS to indent that section relative to the function prototype (or struct
> > or enum definition). Tweak a few other CSS parameters while in the
> > neighborhood to improve the formatting.
> Way back I tried to keep the formatting changes minimal to avoid opening
> that particular can of worms along with the rest of the Sphinx
> transition.
> But I do wonder if people find value in repeating e.g. the struct
> definitions in the documentation. I'd argue the rendered documentation
> is more for an overview, and if you need to know the exact details,
> you'll be in the editor typing code and you can look up the actual
> definition in source. Having the definition feels maybe a bit excessive.

I have split thoughts regards to it. The advantage of having the
struct definition there is to allow checking the type of each argument,
which is useful. It also provide a way to double-check if the parser
is dealing well with the argument, but, on the counter-side, the
type printed by kernel-doc may not be identical to what's inside the
Kernel, on some special cases, as the parse logic for arguments is
complex. The same applies on functions and macros.

> We also don't use Sphinx C Domain's ".. c:member::" for struct/union
> members,

I'm wondering how much extra build time this would impact ;-)
If the impact is not huge, I'm in favor of using it.

> or ".. c:enumerator::" for enumeration contants.

This one can be more problematic, as it could break existing

> They provide arguably nicer rendering out of the box than our stuff.


> The Sphinx way to do parameter lists would be field lists i.e. ":param
> foo: description". Ditto for return values ":return: description". (Not
> saying we should convert the comments, but kernel-doc the script could
> emit those.)
> Perhaps we'd be better off going towards Sphinx standard usage than
> tweaking our own thing?
> I'm afraid I don't have the time to work on this. Talk is cheap and all
> that. My two cents.
> Anyway, here are some examples how this might look like: [1].
> BR,
> Jani.
> [1]

It reminds that we're currently lacking a way to describe non-macro
#defines. In special for bit-based defines, it would be nice to have
a good way to document them, without needing to convert defines into