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

[Jonathan Corbet]

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.

> 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.

Thanks,

jon