Em Tue, 10 Jun 2025 14:07:24 -0700 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 22:59:11 +0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > The question is, are we OK with the templates that need to be created > > > for netlink specs?! > > > > If there's no other way, one might have a tool for maintainers to use > > to update templates, but yeah, having one template per each yaml > > is not ideal. I think we need to investigate it better and seek for > > some alternatives to avoid it. > > FWIW we have tools/net/ynl/ynl-regen.sh, it regenerates the C code > we have committed in the tree (uAPI headers mostly). > We could add it there. Which is not to distract from your main > point that not having the templates would be ideal. With the new Sphinx extension for netlink specs I posted: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/cover.1749723671.git.mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#t https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20250612142438.MED5SEN3C-3RDQI5I1ELC-u8QJEjH8W4vUQRBdyK1tI@z/T/#t There's no need for a template for each file, although it does require updating Documentation/netlink/specs/index.rst. There are a couple of reasons: 1. on my tests, I got some errors auto-generating it while using: make SPHINXDIRS="networking netlink" htmldocs 2. a dynamically-generated file will cause a extra warnings at the userspace files that contain the name of the netlink spec index.html. Basically, kernel build runs a script which validates that all files under Documentation/ actually exist 3. adding/renaming files typically require changing MAINTAINERS and/or Makefiles. Updating index.rst accordingly is already expected for documentation. In any case, as I didn't drop the existing script, you could add a call inside tools/net/ynl/ynl-regen.sh to: tools/net/ynl/pyynl/ynl_gen_rst.py -x -v -o Documentation/netlink/specs/index.rst To ensure that nobody would forget updating it. Regards, Mauro
