linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/4] doc: dma-buf: sphinx conversion and cleanup

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, 11 Aug 2016 08:36:52 -0600
From:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] doc: dma-buf: sphinx conversion and cleanup

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 16:17:56 +0530
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org> wrote:

> Convert dma-buf documentation over to sphinx; also cleanup to
> address sphinx warnings.
> 
> While at that, convert dma-buf-sharing.txt as well, and make it the
> dma-buf API guide.

Thanks for working to improve the documentation!  I do have a few overall
comments...

 - The two comment fixes are a separate thing that should go straight to
   the dma-buf maintainer, who is ... <looks> ... evidently somebody
   familiar to you :)  I assume you'll merge those two directly?

 - It looks like you create a new RST document but leave the old one in
   place.  Having two copies of the document around can only lead to
   confusion, so I think the old one should go.

 - I really wonder if we want to start carving pieces out of
   device-drivers.tmpl in this way.  I guess I would rather see the
   conversion of that book and the better integration of the other docs
   *into* it.  One of the goals of this whole thing is to unify our
   documentation, not to reinforce the silos.

Does that make sense?

Thanks,

jon