From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 034388B4 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 23:15:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D00EAA7 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 23:15:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 19:15:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Julia Lawall To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Peter_H=FCwe?= In-Reply-To: <201507130038.01474.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> Message-ID: References: <201507130038.01474.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Dan Carpenter , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE-TOPIC] Documentation List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > So this leads me to following questions: > - How can we easily identify missing documentation? > -- Maybe Julia can come up with some coccinelle magic? > -- Maybe even mark non-extractable documentation and convert it. > -- In the document it mentions scripts/basic/doproc.c checks for missing > documentation, but this file does not exist anymore :/ Interesting idea. I had not thought of this. Coccinelle doesn't really process comments, but one can always use grep. So the idea would be to find function definitions that don't have anything that looks like a comment in the lines above (ie, the lines since the end of the previous function definition). One could furthermore rank the results by the number of non-local calls to the function. I guess there would be a lot of reports, and it would be most productive to start with functions that are commonly used, julia