Randy Dunlap [off-list ref] writes:

On 1/15/26 7:05 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:

quoted

Jani Nikula [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Wed, 14 Jan 2026, Mauro Carvalho Chehab [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Em Wed, 14 Jan 2026 12:24:31 -0700
Jonathan Corbet [off-list ref] escreveu:

quoted

Randy Dunlap [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I do many of these on a regular basis:

$ ./scripts/kernel-doc -none -Wall <path_to_source_file>

Will I still be able to do that (by using ./tools/doc/kernel-doc ...)?  

Yes.  The tool moves, but its functionality remains unchanged.

That's actually a good point: should we preserve a link on scripts
pointing to ../tools/doc/kernel-doc? I suspect that a change like
that could break some machinery on several CI tools and scripts
out there. If so, it could be useful to keep a link - at least for
a couple of kernel releases.

I think the tool source should be called kernel_doc.py or something, and
scripts/kernel-doc should be a script running the former.

I honestly don't get it - why add an extra indirection step here?

a. compatibility with people in the wild running scripts/kernel-doc

That is easily achieved with a symbolic link if we need it.

b. adhere to well-known naming conventions.

The normal convention is to not have language-specific extensions on
commands.  As in "scripts/kernel-doc".  I still don't understand how
making a wrapper script somehow makes this better.

Thanks,

jon