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

[Randy Dunlap]

Hi Akira,

On 5/25/23 20:17, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2023 16:11:52 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> :-) :-) :-)
> 
> It turns out that kernel-doc is aware of !@var [1].
> Similar tricks can be added for ~@var.
> So let's keep it as is!
> 
> I'll ask documentation forks for updating kernel-doc when this change
> is merged eventually.

What do you mean by that?
What needs to be updated and how?


> [1]: ee2aa7590398 ("scripts: kernel-doc: accept negation like !@var")

thanks.
-- 
~Randy