> On 22 Apr 2021, at 09:06, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 22.04.2021 09:39, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> On 20 Apr 2021, at 11:27, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>>> On 20.04.2021 11:42, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>>> On 20 Apr 2021, at 10:14, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 20.04.2021 10:46, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19 Apr 2021, at 12:05, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19.04.2021 11:12, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>>>>>> - */
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> -/*
>>>>>>>> - * Reference to a grant entry in a specified domain's grant table.
>>>>>>>> - */
>>>>>>>> -typedef uint32_t grant_ref_t;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why does this get moved ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> -/*
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> * A grant table comprises a packed array of grant entries in one or
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> * page frames shared between Xen and a guest.
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> * [XEN]: This field is written by Xen and read by the sharing guest.
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> * [GST]: This field is written by the guest and read by Xen.
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> + * @addtogroup grant_table Grant Tables
>>>>>>>> + * @{
>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -/*
>>>>>>>> - * Version 1 of the grant table entry structure is maintained purely
>>>>>>>> - * for backwards compatibility. New guests should use version 2.
>>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>>> + * Reference to a grant entry in a specified domain's grant table.
>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>> +typedef uint32_t grant_ref_t;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... here, past a comment unrelated to it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The comment “Version 1 of the grant table entry […]” was moved on top of
>>>>>> the struct grant_entry_v1, in this way
>>>>>> Doxygen associate the comment to that structure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The comment “Reference to a grant entry in a specified domain's grant
>>>>>> table.” Is moved on top of typedef uint32_t grant_ref_t
>>>>>> for the same reason above
>>>>>
>>>>> But it's the other comment ("A grant table comprises ...") that I
>>>>> was asking about.
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was part of the brief about grant tables, am I wrong? For
>>>> that reason I moved it.
>>>
>>> Well, the comment talks about grant table entries (the layout of which
>>> gets defined immediately below, as visible in the original patch), not
>>> grant references.
>>
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> Of course this can be reverted back if it is wrong.
>>
>> I’ve prepared a page with the output of all my commits (some of them are not
>> yet in the ML),
>> so anyone can have a look on what is the output and how can sphinx+doxygen
>> improve
>> the quality of the documentation.
>>
>> Here:
>>
>> https://luca.fancellu.gitlab.io/xen-docs/hypercall-interfaces/arm64.html
>
> The doc looks fine in this regard, but the C header should remain
> properly ordered as well.
Hi Jan,
I’ve pushed outside the v3 addressing your comment
>
>>>>>>>> @@ -243,23 +258,27 @@ union grant_entry_v2 {
>>>>>>>> * In that case, the frame field has the same semantics as the
>>>>>>>> * field of the same name in the V1 entry structure.
>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>> + /** @cond skip anonymous struct/union for doxygen */
>>>>>>>> struct {
>>>>>>>> grant_entry_header_t hdr;
>>>>>>>> uint32_t pad0;
>>>>>>>> uint64_t frame;
>>>>>>>> } full_page;
>>>>>>>> + /** @endcond */
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>> * If the grant type is GTF_grant_access and GTF_sub_page is set,
>>>>>>>> * @domid is allowed to access bytes [@page_off,@page_off+@length)
>>>>>>>> * in frame @frame.
>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>> + /** @cond skip anonymous struct/union for doxygen */
>>>>>>>> struct {
>>>>>>>> grant_entry_header_t hdr;
>>>>>>>> uint16_t page_off;
>>>>>>>> uint16_t length;
>>>>>>>> uint64_t frame;
>>>>>>>> } sub_page;
>>>>>>>> + /** @endcond */
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>> * If the grant is GTF_transitive, @domid is allowed to use the
>>>>>>>> @@ -270,12 +289,14 @@ union grant_entry_v2 {
>>>>>>>> * The current version of Xen does not allow transitive grants
>>>>>>>> * to be mapped.
>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>> + /** @cond skip anonymous struct/union for doxygen */
>>>>>>>> struct {
>>>>>>>> grant_entry_header_t hdr;
>>>>>>>> domid_t trans_domid;
>>>>>>>> uint16_t pad0;
>>>>>>>> grant_ref_t gref;
>>>>>>>> } transitive;
>>>>>>>> + /** @endcond */
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While already better than the introduction of strange struct tags,
>>>>>>> I'm still not convinced we want this extra clutter (sorry). Plus -
>>>>>>> don't these additions mean the sub-structures then won't be
>>>>>>> represented in the generated doc, rendering it (partly) useless?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you suggesting to remove the structure from docs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just yet I'm not suggesting anything here - I was merely guessing at
>>>>> the effect of "@cond" and the associated "skip ..." to mean that this
>>>>> construct makes doxygen skip the enclosed section. If that's not the
>>>>> effect, then maybe the comment wants rewording? (And then - what does
>>>>> @cond mean?)
>>>>
>>>> Yes you were right, in the documentation the structure grant_entry_v2
>>>> won’t display the
>>>> anonymous union.
>>>
>>> In which case I'm now completely unclear about your prior question.
>>
>> We have to choose just if the struct is useful even if it’s partially
>> documented or if
>> it’s better to hide it completely from the docs since it can’t be fully
>> documented.
>
> I've never suggested to hide it completely (aiui doing so would
> mean widening the scope of the @cond, i.e. there would still be
> extra clutter). Instead I was trying to suggest to make sure the
> struct gets fully documented despite the absence of struct tags.
In the v3 I preprocess the header to give a name to the anonymous struct so
that it appears in the
docs without touching the header.
Cheers,
Luca
>
> Jan
