Re: [PATCH 0/2] Move kernel-doc to tools/docs

[Randy Dunlap]

On 1/15/26 10:04 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>> On 1/15/26 7:05 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>>> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Em Wed, 14 Jan 2026 12:24:31 -0700
>>>>> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> escreveu:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do many of these on a regular basis:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> $ ./scripts/kernel-doc -none -Wall <path_to_source_file>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will I still be able to do that (by using ./tools/doc/kernel-doc ...)?  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.  The tool moves, but its functionality remains unchanged.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's actually a good point: should we preserve a link on scripts
>>>>> pointing to ../tools/doc/kernel-doc? I suspect that a change like
>>>>> that could break some machinery on several CI tools and scripts
>>>>> out there. If so, it could be useful to keep a link - at least for
>>>>> a couple of kernel releases.
>>>>
>>>> I think the tool source should be called kernel_doc.py or something, and
>>>> scripts/kernel-doc should be a script running the former.
>>>
>>> I honestly don't get it - why add an extra indirection step here?
>>
>> a. compatibility with people in the wild running scripts/kernel-doc
> 
> That is easily achieved with a symbolic link if we need it.

Sure.

>> b. adhere to well-known naming conventions.
> 
> The normal convention is to not have language-specific extensions on
> commands.  As in "scripts/kernel-doc".  I still don't understand how
> making a wrapper script somehow makes this better.

Ah, like .py or .pl or .sh.
Yeah, nice to avoid those.

-- 
~Randy