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 11:25:58 -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 11:18 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 ...

Here's an example of what I'm suggesting.  I think we should just go
with this and add better output as we go.

But we need all of the qdev information..  not just a doc string for
each property.

Missing: make "device_add ?" show your device doc strings, and
"device_add NAME,?" show your property doc strings.

I really dislike overloading things for inline help. Introducing a device_help is fine and hopefully you realize that generating this is trivial.


Missing: automated check qdev-doc.json matches the code.  Keeping the
docs far from the code is a bad idea even with such a check.

I view this as a feature. What's documented is what's supported. Anything that isn't documented isn't supported.

But yes, hopefully it's obvious that we can add automated checks to improve this.

But if we're going to start somewhere, this is where I think we should start.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

[...]





reply via email to

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