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

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Thu, 15 Jan 2026 12:33:10 +0200
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:

> 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.

Works for me.

> In regular python projects the script would be generated based on
> pyproject.toml or something, but regardless the source file name would
> adhere to PEP requirements.

Agreed.

> Additionally, the kernel-doc source could be a package under
> tools/lib/python, with __main__.py so you could run it using the package
> name 'python3 -m foo' style.

This is where we diverge: all the code needed to produce docs are
already inside modules which are called directly via Sphinx extension. 

So, I can't see an advantage on moving main to __main__.py.


Thanks,
Mauro