qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] qdev device documentation (Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb-linux: p


From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qdev device documentation (Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb-linux: physical port handling.)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:23:29 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10

On 05/12/2011 11:08 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>  writes:

On 05/12/2011 10:25 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Hi,

What is the status of the qdev documentation patches btw.?

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-02/msg02169.html

What is the problem with the empty strings btw?

The only way around I can see is having _DOC and _NODOC versions for all
the property macros, but I'd prefer to not have _NODOC macros in the
tree ...

Inline documentation is bad.  Our documentation should be
centralized. That's the only way to keep it consistent and thorough.

External documentation of code details is bad.  Our documentation should
be next to the code.  That's the only way to keep it up-to-date and
consistent with the code.

qdev properties are *not* code details. It's a public user interface that we have to support for every.

It should be disconnected from the internal implementation. And yes, the incestuous relationship that exists today is a problem, but it's one we're going to have to live with.


There's no way to easily extract the inline docs in a complete way
since some devices are built conditionally.

For each configured target: extract docs of the devices it builds
Concatenate and discard the duplicates

Yes, that means you don't get docs for devices none of your targets has.
That's a feature.  If you really want docs for all devices, build all
targets.

But for things like Spice where the lack of libspice influences whether the device is available, how do I extract formal documentation to publish on qemu.org reliably?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]