1.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 2 3How to help improve kernel documentation 4======================================== 5 6Documentation is an important part of any software-development project. 7Good documentation helps to bring new developers in and helps established 8developers work more effectively. Without top-quality documentation, a lot 9of time is wasted in reverse-engineering the code and making avoidable 10mistakes. 11 12Unfortunately, the kernel's documentation currently falls far short of what 13it needs to be to support a project of this size and importance. 14 15This guide is for contributors who would like to improve that situation. 16Kernel documentation improvements can be made by developers at a variety of 17skill levels; they are a relatively easy way to learn the kernel process in 18general and find a place in the community. The bulk of what follows is the 19documentation maintainer's list of tasks that most urgently need to be 20done. 21 22The documentation TODO list 23--------------------------- 24 25There is an endless list of tasks that need to be carried out to get our 26documentation to where it should be. This list contains a number of 27important items, but is far from exhaustive; if you see a different way to 28improve the documentation, please do not hold back! 29 30Addressing warnings 31~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 32 33The documentation build currently spews out an unbelievable number of 34warnings. When you have that many, you might as well have none at all; 35people ignore them, and they will never notice when their work adds new 36ones. For this reason, eliminating warnings is one of the highest-priority 37tasks on the documentation TODO list. The task itself is reasonably 38straightforward, but it must be approached in the right way to be 39successful. 40 41Warnings issued by a compiler for C code can often be dismissed as false 42positives, leading to patches aimed at simply shutting the compiler up. 43Warnings from the documentation build almost always point at a real 44problem; making those warnings go away requires understanding the problem 45and fixing it at its source. For this reason, patches fixing documentation 46warnings should probably not say "fix a warning" in the changelog title; 47they should indicate the real problem that has been fixed. 48 49Another important point is that documentation warnings are often created by 50problems in kerneldoc comments in C code. While the documentation 51maintainer appreciates being copied on fixes for these warnings, the 52documentation tree is often not the right one to actually carry those 53fixes; they should go to the maintainer of the subsystem in question. 54 55For example, in a documentation build I grabbed a pair of warnings nearly 56at random:: 57 58 ./drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c:1818: warning: bad line: 59 - Resource-managed devfreq_register_notifier() 60 ./drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c:1854: warning: bad line: 61 - Resource-managed devfreq_unregister_notifier() 62 63(The lines were split for readability). 64 65A quick look at the source file named above turned up a couple of kerneldoc 66comments that look like this:: 67 68 /** 69 * devm_devfreq_register_notifier() 70 - Resource-managed devfreq_register_notifier() 71 * @dev: The devfreq user device. (parent of devfreq) 72 * @devfreq: The devfreq object. 73 * @nb: The notifier block to be unregistered. 74 * @list: DEVFREQ_TRANSITION_NOTIFIER. 75 */ 76 77The problem is the missing "*", which confuses the build system's 78simplistic idea of what C comment blocks look like. This problem had been 79present since that comment was added in 2016 — a full four years. Fixing 80it was a matter of adding the missing asterisks. A quick look at the 81history for that file showed what the normal format for subject lines is, 82and ``scripts/get_maintainer.pl`` told me who should receive it (pass paths to 83your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). The resulting patch 84looked like this:: 85 86 [PATCH] PM / devfreq: Fix two malformed kerneldoc comments 87 88 Two kerneldoc comments in devfreq.c fail to adhere to the required format, 89 resulting in these doc-build warnings: 90 91 ./drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c:1818: warning: bad line: 92 - Resource-managed devfreq_register_notifier() 93 ./drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c:1854: warning: bad line: 94 - Resource-managed devfreq_unregister_notifier() 95 96 Add a couple of missing asterisks and make kerneldoc a little happier. 97 98 Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> 99 --- 100 drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c | 4 ++-- 101 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) 102 103 diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c 104 index 57f6944d65a6..00c9b80b3d33 100644 105 --- a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c 106 +++ b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c 107 @@ -1814,7 +1814,7 @@ static void devm_devfreq_notifier_release(struct device *dev, void *res) 108 109 /** 110 * devm_devfreq_register_notifier() 111 - - Resource-managed devfreq_register_notifier() 112 + * - Resource-managed devfreq_register_notifier() 113 * @dev: The devfreq user device. (parent of devfreq) 114 * @devfreq: The devfreq object. 115 * @nb: The notifier block to be unregistered. 116 @@ -1850,7 +1850,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(devm_devfreq_register_notifier); 117 118 /** 119 * devm_devfreq_unregister_notifier() 120 - - Resource-managed devfreq_unregister_notifier() 121 + * - Resource-managed devfreq_unregister_notifier() 122 * @dev: The devfreq user device. (parent of devfreq) 123 * @devfreq: The devfreq object. 124 * @nb: The notifier block to be unregistered. 125 -- 126 2.24.1 127 128The entire process only took a few minutes. Of course, I then found that 129somebody else had fixed it in a separate tree, highlighting another lesson: 130always check linux-next to see if a problem has been fixed before you dig 131into it. 132 133Other fixes will take longer, especially those relating to structure 134members or function parameters that lack documentation. In such cases, it 135is necessary to work out what the role of those members or parameters is 136and describe them correctly. Overall, this task gets a little tedious at 137times, but it's highly important. If we can actually eliminate warnings 138from the documentation build, then we can start expecting developers to 139avoid adding new ones. 140 141In addition to warnings from the regular documentation build, you can also 142run ``make refcheckdocs`` to find references to nonexistent documentation 143files. 144 145Languishing kerneldoc comments 146~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 147 148Developers are encouraged to write kerneldoc comments for their code, but 149many of those comments are never pulled into the docs build. That makes 150this information harder to find and, for example, makes Sphinx unable to 151generate links to that documentation. Adding ``kernel-doc`` directives to 152the documentation to bring those comments in can help the community derive 153the full value of the work that has gone into creating them. 154 155The ``scripts/find-unused-docs.sh`` tool can be used to find these 156overlooked comments. 157 158Note that the most value comes from pulling in the documentation for 159exported functions and data structures. Many subsystems also have 160kerneldoc comments for internal use; those should not be pulled into the 161documentation build unless they are placed in a document that is 162specifically aimed at developers working within the relevant subsystem. 163 164 165Typo fixes 166~~~~~~~~~~ 167 168Fixing typographical or formatting errors in the documentation is a quick 169way to figure out how to create and send patches, and it is a useful 170service. I am always willing to accept such patches. That said, once you 171have fixed a few, please consider moving on to more advanced tasks, leaving 172some typos for the next beginner to address. 173 174Please note that some things are *not* typos and should not be "fixed": 175 176 - Both American and British English spellings are allowed within the 177 kernel documentation. There is no need to fix one by replacing it with 178 the other. 179 180 - The question of whether a period should be followed by one or two spaces 181 is not to be debated in the context of kernel documentation. Other 182 areas of rational disagreement, such as the "Oxford comma", are also 183 off-topic here. 184 185As with any patch to any project, please consider whether your change is 186really making things better. 187 188Ancient documentation 189~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 190 191Some kernel documentation is current, maintained, and useful. Some 192documentation is ... not. Dusty, old, and inaccurate documentation can 193mislead readers and casts doubt on our documentation as a whole. Anything 194that can be done to address such problems is more than welcome. 195 196Whenever you are working with a document, please consider whether it is 197current, whether it needs updating, or whether it should perhaps be removed 198altogether. There are a number of warning signs that you can pay attention 199to here: 200 201 - References to 2.x kernels 202 - Pointers to SourceForge repositories 203 - Nothing but typo fixes in the history for several years 204 - Discussion of pre-Git workflows 205 206The best thing to do, of course, would be to bring the documentation 207current, adding whatever information is needed. Such work often requires 208the cooperation of developers familiar with the subsystem in question, of 209course. Developers are often more than willing to cooperate with people 210working to improve the documentation when asked nicely, and when their 211answers are listened to and acted upon. 212 213Some documentation is beyond hope; we occasionally find documents that 214refer to code that was removed from the kernel long ago, for example. 215There is surprising resistance to removing obsolete documentation, but we 216should do that anyway. Extra cruft in our documentation helps nobody. 217 218In cases where there is perhaps some useful information in a badly outdated 219document, and you are unable to update it, the best thing to do may be to 220add a warning at the beginning. The following text is recommended:: 221 222 .. warning :: 223 This document is outdated and in need of attention. Please use 224 this information with caution, and please consider sending patches 225 to update it. 226 227That way, at least our long-suffering readers have been warned that the 228document may lead them astray. 229 230Documentation coherency 231~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 232 233The old-timers around here will remember the Linux books that showed up on 234the shelves in the 1990s. They were simply collections of documentation 235files scrounged from various locations on the net. The books have (mostly) 236improved since then, but the kernel's documentation is still mostly built 237on that model. It is thousands of files, almost each of which was written 238in isolation from all of the others. We don't have a coherent body of 239kernel documentation; we have thousands of individual documents. 240 241We have been trying to improve the situation through the creation of 242a set of "books" that group documentation for specific readers. These 243include: 244 245 - Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst 246 - Documentation/core-api/index.rst 247 - Documentation/driver-api/index.rst 248 - Documentation/userspace-api/index.rst 249 250As well as this book on documentation itself. 251 252Moving documents into the appropriate books is an important task and needs 253to continue. There are a couple of challenges associated with this work, 254though. Moving documentation files creates short-term pain for the people 255who work with those files; they are understandably unenthusiastic about 256such changes. Usually the case can be made to move a document once; we 257really don't want to keep shifting them around, though. 258 259Even when all documents are in the right place, though, we have only 260managed to turn a big pile into a group of smaller piles. The work of 261trying to knit all of those documents together into a single whole has not 262yet begun. If you have bright ideas on how we could proceed on that front, 263we would be more than happy to hear them. 264 265Stylesheet improvements 266~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 267 268With the adoption of Sphinx we have much nicer-looking HTML output than we 269once did. But it could still use a lot of improvement; Donald Knuth and 270Edward Tufte would be unimpressed. That requires tweaking our stylesheets 271to create more typographically sound, accessible, and readable output. 272 273Be warned: if you take on this task you are heading into classic bikeshed 274territory. Expect a lot of opinions and discussion for even relatively 275obvious changes. That is, alas, the nature of the world we live in. 276 277Non-LaTeX PDF build 278~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 279 280This is a decidedly nontrivial task for somebody with a lot of time and 281Python skills. The Sphinx toolchain is relatively small and well 282contained; it is easy to add to a development system. But building PDF or 283EPUB output requires installing LaTeX, which is anything but small or well 284contained. That would be a nice thing to eliminate. 285 286The original hope had been to use the rst2pdf tool (https://rst2pdf.org/) 287for PDF generation, but it turned out to not be up to the task. 288Development work on rst2pdf seems to have picked up again in recent times, 289though, which is a hopeful sign. If a suitably motivated developer were to 290work with that project to make rst2pdf work with the kernel documentation 291build, the world would be eternally grateful. 292 293Write more documentation 294~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 295 296Naturally, there are massive parts of the kernel that are severely 297underdocumented. If you have the knowledge to document a specific kernel 298subsystem and the desire to do so, please do not hesitate to do some 299writing and contribute the result to the kernel. Untold numbers of kernel 300developers and users will thank you. 301