Re: [PATCH 24/26] locking/atomic: scripts: generate kerneldoc comments

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 11:03:58PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:

> > * All ops are described as an expression using their usual C operator.
> >   For example:
> > 
> >   andnot: "Atomically updates @v to (@v & ~@i)"
> 
> The kernel-doc script converts "~@i" into reST source of "~**i**",
> where the emphasis of i is not recognized by Sphinx.
> 
> For the "@" to work as expected, please say "~(@i)" or "~ @i".
> My preference is the former.

And here we start :-/ making the actual comment less readable because
retarded tooling.

> >   inc:    "Atomically updates @v to (@v + 1)"
> > 
> >   Which may be clearer to non-naative English speakers, and allows all
>                             non-native
> 
> >   the operations to be described in the same style.
> > 
> > * All conditional ops have their condition described as an expression
> >   using the usual C operators. For example:
> > 
> >   add_unless: "If (@v != @u), atomically updates @v to (@v + @i)"
> >   cmpxchg:    "If (@v == @old), atomically updates @v to @new"
> > 
> >   Which may be clearer to non-naative English speakers, and allows all
> 
> Ditto.

How about we just keep it as is, and all the rst and html weenies learn
to use a text editor to read code comments?