[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] kernel-doc: rename the kernel-doc directive 'functions' to 'identifiers'

[Changbin Du]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 09:57:48AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019, Jonathan Corbet <corbet at lwn.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 21:17:17 +0800
> > Changbin Du <changbin.du at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The 'functions' directive is not only for functions, but also works for
> >> structs/unions. So the name is misleading. This patch renames it to
> >> 'identifiers', which specific the functions/types to be included in
> >> documentation. We keep the old name as an alias of the new one before
> >> all documentation are updated.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Changbin Du <changbin.du at gmail.com>
> >
> > So I think this is basically OK, but I have one more request...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py b/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py
> >> index 1159405cb920..0689f9c37f1e 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py
> >> +++ b/Documentation/sphinx/kerneldoc.py
> >> @@ -59,9 +59,10 @@ class KernelDocDirective(Directive):
> >>      optional_arguments = 4
> >>      option_spec = {
> >>          'doc': directives.unchanged_required,
> >> -        'functions': directives.unchanged,
> >>          'export': directives.unchanged,
> >>          'internal': directives.unchanged,
> >> +        'identifiers': directives.unchanged,
> >> +        'functions': directives.unchanged,  # alias of 'identifiers'
> >>      }
> >>      has_content = False
> >>  
> >> @@ -71,6 +72,7 @@ class KernelDocDirective(Directive):
> >>  
> >>          filename = env.config.kerneldoc_srctree + '/' + self.arguments[0]
> >>          export_file_patterns = []
> >> +        identifiers = None
> >>  
> >>          # Tell sphinx of the dependency
> >>          env.note_dependency(os.path.abspath(filename))
> >> @@ -86,19 +88,22 @@ class KernelDocDirective(Directive):
> >>              export_file_patterns = str(self.options.get('internal')).split()
> >>          elif 'doc' in self.options:
> >>              cmd += ['-function', str(self.options.get('doc'))]
> >> +        elif 'identifiers' in self.options:
> >> +            identifiers = self.options.get('identifiers').split()
> >>          elif 'functions' in self.options:
> >> -            functions = self.options.get('functions').split()
> >> -            if functions:
> >> -                for f in functions:
> >> -                    cmd += ['-function', f]
> >> -            else:
> >> -                cmd += ['-no-doc-sections']
> >> +            identifiers = self.options.get('functions').split()
> >
> > Rather than do this, can you just change the elif line to read:
> >
> >     elif ('identifiers' in self.options) or ('functions' in self.options):
> >
> > ...then leave the rest of the code intact?  It keeps the logic together,
> > and avoids the confusing distinction between identifiers=='' and
> > identifiers==None .
> 
> I think the problem is you still need to distinguish between the two for
> the get('functions') part.
> 
> One option is to rename 'functions' to 'identifiers' in the above block,
> and put something like this above the whole if ladder (untested):
> 
>         # backward compat
>         if 'functions' in self.options:
>             if 'identifiers' in self.options:
>                 kernellog.warn(env.app, "fail")
This will miss the content of 'functions' directive if both exist in
same doc.

>             else:
>                 self.options.set('identifiers', self.options.get('functions'))
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
>
After comparing, I still perfer my original code which is simpler. :)

> 
> -- 
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

-- 
Cheers,
Changbin Du