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?
--js
