Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > On 21/05/19 10:53, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: [...] >> QEMU should pick a tool which is well established / widely used & thus >> stands a good chance of being maintained for the long term, as we don't >> want to end up relying on abandonware in 5 years time. The kernel-doc >> project is not widely used, but its main user is significant enough that >> it isn't likely to die through lack of maintainers. > > A couple years ago I didn't have problems modifying kerneldoc for QEMU's > syntax, it was a 10 lines patch. Unfortunately I cannot find it anymore.
"QEMU's syntax" --- excuse me while I guffaw. What you (quite charitably) call "syntax", I call a habit of imitating examples. Anyway. What's so special about QEMU that justifies coming up with our own doc syntax? Other than "we made a hash of it, and cleaning it up would be work".
