On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 04:32:35PM -0400, John Snow wrote: > > > On 5/21/19 11:27 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 16:18, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> 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". > > > > The major problem as far as kernel-doc is concerned is that > > it somewhat bakes in the kernel's style choice that the > > 'struct' keyword is not hidden behind typedefs, and so it > > gets a bit confused by QEMU's "use typedefs for struct types" > > style. The rest, as you say, is just a matter of fixing up > > our syntax errors. > > > > thanks > > -- PMM > > > > But this is the one we're going with? Do we have a plan for teaching it > not to panic for our use of named custom types?
If I understood correctly, the patch from Paolo that I have forwarded to this thread is all we need. Are there other issues with kernel-doc we would still need to address? -- Eduardo
