linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] Documentation/atomic

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:56:41 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Silvio Fricke <silvio.fricke@...il.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
        "Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] Documentation/atomic_ops.txt: convert to ReST
 markup

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 01:16:45PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Using rst we can produce decent HTML pages, and make them available at
> [1], in context. You don't have to read that, but it will be a lot more
> discoverable for other people, another important quality of good
> documentation. And perhaps you don't have to tell people to go read it
> so much.
> 
> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/

*sigh*, basically if I have to touch a browser its broken.

> > Very much agreed, once a file is no longer readable with less or the
> > text editor of your choice, it as good doesn't exist at all. So I very
> > much worry about RST even supporting such heavy markup that the end
> > result is unreadable.
> 
> The goal is to have the best of both worlds, keeping it pretty much
> plain text, but adding just enough consistency in formatting that you
> can generate other formats out of it. We don't have to and we shouldn't
> go overboard with the markup.
> 
> Arguably you could call rst a "coding style" for plain text. We have
> pretty uniform C code, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a little
> bit of consistency in the plain text. And really, it's not much we're
> asking.

With some decidedly daft conventions though; see my email to Mauro.