On 9/9/25 4:49 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
>
> On 9/9/25 4:09 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> Em Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:06:43 -0700
>> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>>
>>> On 9/9/25 12:58 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>>> Em Tue, 9 Sep 2025 00:27:20 -0700
>>>> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>>
>>>>> +.. kernel-doc:: init/kdoc-globals-test.c
>>>>> + :identifiers:
>>>>>
>>>>> The html output says
>>>>> "Kernel Globals"
>>>>> but nothing else.
>>>>
>>>> I usually don't add :identifiers: on kernel-doc entries. If you use
>>>> identifiers, you need to explicitly tell what symbols you want.
>>>
>>> Well, it worked/works without using having any identifiers listed, and
>>> the docs in Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst says that they are
>>> optional:
>>>
>>> identifiers: *[ function/type ...]*
>>> Include documentation for each *function* and *type* in *source*.
>>> If no *function* is specified, the documentation for all functions
>>> and types in the *source* will be included.
>>> *type* can be a struct, union, enum, or typedef identifier.
>>
>> Hmm.. looking the entire logic:
>>
>> elif 'identifiers' in self.options:
>> identifiers = self.options.get('identifiers').split()
>> if identifiers:
>> for i in identifiers:
>> i = i.rstrip("\\").strip()
>> if not i:
>> continue
>>
>> cmd += ['-function', i]
>> self.msg_args["symbol"].append(i)
>> else:
>> cmd += ['-no-doc-sections']
>> self.msg_args["no_doc_sections"] = True
>>
>> I suspect that an empty identifier could be raising an exception.
>>
>> The right logic should be, instead:
>>
>> - elif 'identifiers' in self.options:
>> - identifiers = self.options.get('identifiers').split()
>> - if identifiers:
>> - for i in identifiers:
>> + elif 'identifiers' in self.options:
>> + identifiers = self.options.get('identifiers')
>> + if identifiers:
>> + for i in identifiers.split():
>>
>> (tests needed)
>
> Sheesh, I can't find that code so that I can patch it.
> (in today's linux-next 20250909)
oops, I was looking in scripts/ and not in Documentation/.
got it.
> Anyway, does this take away something that currently works?
>
> thanks.
--
~Randy
