From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7000636299B; Thu, 21 Aug 2025 20:18:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755807492; cv=none; b=gdfrCusXrlqhlKHfxGLY8y8tD9zLerYJoeE5sKRp8xIuMILY/baJSixlEmPTP8uwzc8/9yS983VyhbT49xNOqqbDVeBfCzsascgKD/iZ9tZEzO6Nq1RJ13gEsfJbU5FRP400aaGLhRMLxLNBdr0c67WW8NxmZ1FmYvYPVDWhBgw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755807492; c=relaxed/simple; bh=c8DsSrJaMnEWoX23jkNnLC7l/EoU9r/NMUCpOmQwdx8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=g3rb9lVLrW7wWi09HIy7UlCpLTYeF+pIL8GE4oHPgZiHeVv2XaJnndNRl6dDtZCpT/3BFn6CZrbZKGneqHcTD0RX/+VQNh1hovtd1X/2phLDIyhs/gtFmluxZSxrq6MDJ8CsOj6SxYt8FfNz6U9MQp6KOsrdZSFY9JIjQCdxrLU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=R7ga1qJb; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="R7ga1qJb" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 3A66D40AD5 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1755807489; bh=L1y7dswyjIEQ5uiwA4dVswHTuGstruSKu9IMPlOfEdg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=R7ga1qJb4qvrSTghd1VS8VQ13x9q94khWTr4AC2roiKr6XmBfxQaqq1reRUxSOAIo mvdP619YphXUm8uDkEQwrCYhnzlNH9HwIV92EI3LfFuTdgiiiICBqbJmnDNpzMQV3o KkxrAKbGzs4HNRdQnTpARqr1jyGbfgQhyt2sNdbS8B+YZzl0oyHp1bKEhGyvzxIPuv YBpvEZfToIIlGjhcJO0IIMBN3RCfGTnAzzMryrQu+KUFrFc6Gv/r8Jty4vGs3fTA4B oIXTE0yAMuq6QmO9Phv0+H5zcs0kuqBaLTmn5eT+qgqHIckF33NgYviWRxlhhqoYY0 OmRbTtLmoyuYA== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:2da9::824]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A66D40AD5; Thu, 21 Aug 2025 20:18:09 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Linux Doc Mailing List , =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6?= =?utf-8?Q?rn?= Roy Baron , Alex Gaynor , Alice Ryhl , Boqun Feng , Gary Guo , Trevor Gross , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] scripts: sphinx-build-wrapper: add a wrapper for sphinx-build In-Reply-To: <20250821214308.08835b9f@foz.lan> References: <88a95c7f6996cafb247d6706060173b17a46d570.1755258303.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> <87v7mg5ux3.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <20250821214308.08835b9f@foz.lan> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 14:18:08 -0600 Message-ID: <87bjo8qvi7.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mauro Carvalho Chehab writes: > Em Thu, 21 Aug 2025 13:36:24 -0600 > Jonathan Corbet escreveu: > >> Mauro Carvalho Chehab writes: >> >> > There are too much magic inside docs Makefile to properly run >> > sphinx-build. Create an ancillary script that contains all >> > kernel-related sphinx-build call logic currently at Makefile. >> >> So I am just now looking at the script and seeking to understand it, but >> one thing has jumped at me that I wanted to toss out there... >> >> > +# Minimal supported Python version needed by Sphinx and its extensions >> > +MIN_PYTHON_VERSION = parse_version("3.7") >> > + >> > +# Default value for --venv parameter >> > +VENV_DEFAULT = "sphinx_latest" >> > + >> > +# List of make targets and its corresponding builder and output directory >> > +TARGETS = { >> >> We don't at this point have a formal coding standard for Python code, >> but I do think that we should, to the extent possible, stick to the >> rules that have been established for C code. One thing I would really >> like to see is in the comment style; our rules want: >> >> /* >> * ...C comments spread out with the markers on separate lines >> * like this... >> */ >> >> so can we do something similar for Python? >> >> # >> # Markers above and below >> # >> >> I will confess that this matches my personal subject preference, but it >> also brings us closer to what our C code looks like. > > Fine for me. Can I do such changes on a patch at the end of the series > to prevent rebase conflicts? Yes, of course - and I don't think we have to fix everything right away either. We already have plenty of inconsistent stuff, we can deal with it in the usual manner, cleaning it up when we're in the neighborhood anyway. Thanks, jon