[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190624143748.7fcfe623@lwn.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:37:48 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Gary R Hook <ghook@....com>, "Hook, Gary" <Gary.Hook@....com>,
"herbert@...dor.apana.org.au" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Clean up crypto documentation
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:29:42 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > Finally, would you prefer a v2 of the patch set? Happy to do
> > whatever is preferred, of course.
>
> Whatever Jonathan decides is fine with me.
> Mine was just a plea to avoid unnecessarily
> making the source text harder to read as
> that's what I mostly use.
Usually Herbert seems to take crypto docs, so it's not necessarily up to
me :)
I don't see much that's objectionable here. But...
> I don't know if this extension is valid yet, but
> I believe just using <function_name>() is more
> readable as text than ``<function_name>`` or
> :c:func:`<function_name>`
It's been "valid" since I wrote it...it's just not upstream yet :) I
expect it to be in 5.3, though. So the best way to refer to a kernel
function, going forward, is just function() with no markup needed.
Thanks,
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists