[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190625075250.3a912863@lwn.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:52:50 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Gary R Hook <ghook@....com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.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 Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:33:27 +0000
Gary R Hook <ghook@....com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> So I'm unclear:
>
> 1) would you prefer I wait on your 5.3 change being fully committed,
> 2) add your change to my local tree and use it, then submit an update
> patchset that depends upon it, or
> 3) re-submit now (using the current method) with suggested changes?
I would just not mark up function() at all, and the right thing will
happen to it in the very near future.
Thanks,
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists