linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Docs: An initial automarkup extension for sphinx

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:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 21:58:58 +0300
From:   Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Docs: An initial automarkup extension for sphinx

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:
> I am not at all opposed to a more proper solution that might, in the
> long term, produce more deterministic results.  I can even try to work in
> that direction.  But this is something that can be done now that, IMO,
> doesn't in any way close off a better implementation in the future.  If we
> agree that we should automatically generate references for occurrences of
> "function()", we can change how that is actually done later.
>
> I'll look into this further, but my inclination is to go forward with what
> I have now.  It's simple and easy to understand, and doesn't seem to screw
> up anywhere in the current body of kernel docs as far as I can tell.

Fair enough. It's most important that this doesn't block us from
switching to a different implementation later once someone figures it
out.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center