lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] scripts: kernel-doc: fix typedef support for struct parsing
Date
Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@gmail.com> writes:

> There are files in kernel, which use 'typedef struct' syntax for defining
> struct. For eg, include/linux/zstd.h, drivers/scsi/megaraid/mega_common.h,
> etc.
> However, kernel-doc still does not support it, causing a parsing error.
>
> For eg, running scripts/kernel-doc -none on include/linux/zstd.h emits:
> "error: Cannot parse struct or union!"
>
> Add support for parsing it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@gmail.com>
> ---
> scripts/kernel-doc | 12 ++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc
> index 8b5bc7bf4bb8..46e904dc3f87 100755
> --- a/scripts/kernel-doc
> +++ b/scripts/kernel-doc
> @@ -1201,12 +1201,20 @@ sub dump_union($$) {
> sub dump_struct($$) {
> my $x = shift;
> my $file = shift;
> + my $decl_type;
> + my $members;
>
> if ($x =~ /(struct|union)\s+(\w+)\s*\{(.*)\}(\s*(__packed|__aligned|____cacheline_aligned_in_smp|____cacheline_aligned|__attribute__\s*\(\([a-z0-9,_\s\(\)]*\)\)))*/) {
> - my $decl_type = $1;
> + $decl_type = $1;
> $declaration_name = $2;
> - my $members = $3;
> + $members = $3;
> + } elsif ($x =~ /typedef\s+(struct|union)\s*\{(.*)\}(?:\s*(?:__packed|__aligned|____cacheline_aligned_in_smp|____cacheline_aligned|__attribute__\s*\(\([a-z0-9,_\s\(\)]*\)\)))*\s*(\w*)\s*;/) {

So this isn't your fault, but these regexes are really getting out of
hand. I would *really* like to see some effort made into making this
code more understandable / maintainable as we tweak this stuff. So:

- Splitting out the common part, as suggested by Lukas, would be really
useful. That would also avoid the problem of only occurrence being
edited the next tine we add a new qualifier.

- Splitting out other subsections of the regex and giving them symbolic
names would also help.

- We really could use some comments before these branches saying what
they are doing; it is *not* obvious from the code.

See what I'm getting at here?

Thanks,

jon

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-22 22:42    [W:0.045 / U:27.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site