linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] Fix some doc build warnings/errors and broken links

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Thu, 10 May 2018 14:22:35 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] Fix some doc build warnings/errors and broken
 links

On Wed,  9 May 2018 10:18:43 -0300
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org> wrote:

> Patches 1 to 5 on this series contain the patches that weren't yet
> applied from the past patch series and touch only at Documentation.
> There are two changes there:
>   patch 2: fixed the description and added a c/c to cgroup maintainers;
>   patch 4: rewritten according with Louis request, droping several hunks.

Of these, I've applied 2, 4, and 6.  The networking and crypto folks like
to apply their own documentation fixes; I assume they'll pick these up.

> Patch 6 rewrites scripts/documentation-file-ref-check on Perl,
> adding an auto-fix feature.

Applied this one.

> Patches 7 and 8 fix things that would cause troubles for the
> automatic autocorrection tool.

#7 is applied.  #8 doesn't apply, though; I'm not sure which tree you made
it against?  In any case, I've stopped here for now.

> Patch 9 touches a lot of random places (including MAINTAINERS)
> that contain broken links and can be auto-fixed. It could be
> broken into one patch per touched file, but I think that is
> overkill. 

Let's keep this one (and the ones that follow) aside.  I'm happy to apply
them, but I think they are best applied as an end-of-merge-window thing.  I
envision lots of conflicts, and I already have a pile of those to explain
to Linus this time around.

Sound good?

Thanks,

jon