Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:53:17 -0800 | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Subject | Re: kernel-doc : possible fix for non-fatal perl errors when parsing some function pointers |
| |
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:44:37 -0800 Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:21:54 -0800 Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:13:12 +0000 Richard Kennedy wrote: > > > > > When running "make htmldocs" I'm seeing some non-fatal perl errors > > > caused by trying to parse the callback function definitions in > > > blk-core.c. > > > > > > The errors are "Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.)..." > > > > > > The function pointers are defined without a * i.e. > > > int (drv_callback)(struct request *) > > > > > > The compiler is happy with them, but kernel-doc isn't. > > > > > > This patch teaches create_parameterlist in kernel-doc to parse this type > > > of function pointer definition, but is it the right way to fix the > > > problem ? The problem only seems to occur in blk-core.c. > > > > > > However with the patch applied, kernel-doc finds the correct parameter > > > description for the callback in blk_end_request_callback, which is > > > doesn't normally. > > > (the patch is against v2.6.25-rc1) > > > > > > I thought it would be a bit odd to change to code to use the more normal > > > form of function pointers just to get the documentation to work, so I > > > fixed kernel-doc instead - even though this is teaching it to understand > > > code that might go away (The comment for blk_end_request_callback says > > > that it should not be used and will removed at some point). > > > > > > Any ideas on which is the best way to fix this? > > > > Hi Richard, > > Thanks for the patch. I was planning to look into this problem > > this weekend. > > > > I think that changing scripts/kernel-doc to accept the current > > kernel source tree usage is the right thing to do, even if the > > block/blk code is a bit different. I'll test it a bit and then > > push it. > > I'm not quite happy with the way that these function pointer > parameters are presented. E.g., > the callback function above is presented by kernel-doc as: > > int ()(struct request *) drv_callback); > whereas this > int (drv_callback)(struct request *) > would be much better. If you could look into massaging that > parameter output, that would be great. If not, I'll look into > later.
OK, this is a separate issue, so your patch doesn't need to handle/fix it. I'll check your followup email/patch for whitespace etc....
> > I appreciate the patch. > > > > > diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc > > > index 26146cb..68b2e4e 100755 > > > --- a/scripts/kernel-doc > > > +++ b/scripts/kernel-doc > > > @@ -1512,13 +1512,13 @@ sub create_parameterlist($$$) { > > > # corresponding data structures "correctly". Catch it later in > > > # output_* subs. > > > push_parameter($arg, "", $file); > > > - } elsif ($arg =~ m/\(.*\*/) { > > > + } elsif ($arg =~ m/\(.+\)\s*\(/) { > > > # pointer-to-function > > > $arg =~ tr/#/,/; > > > - $arg =~ m/[^\(]+\(\*\s*([^\)]+)\)/; > > > + $arg =~ m/[^\(]+\(\*?\s*(\w*)\s*\)/; > > > $param = $1; > > > $type = $arg; > > > - $type =~ s/([^\(]+\(\*)$param/$1/; > > > + $type =~ s/([^\(]+\(\*?)$param/$1/; > > > push_parameter($param, $type, $file); > > > } elsif ($arg) { > > > $arg =~ s/\s*:\s*/:/g;
--- ~Randy
| |