linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: fix typo in memblock doc

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:35:36 +0100
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Cao jin <caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock: fix typo in memblock doc

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:54:09AM +0800, Cao jin wrote:
> On 9/11/19 10:42 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:08:56AM +0800, Cao jin wrote:
> >> elaboarte -> elaborate
> >> architecure -> architecture
> >> compltes -> completes
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Cao jin <caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
> >> ---
> >>  mm/memblock.c | 6 +++---
> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> >> index 7d4f61ae666a..0d0f92003d18 100644
> >> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> >> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> >> @@ -83,16 +83,16 @@
> >>   * Note, that both API variants use implict assumptions about allowed
> >>   * memory ranges and the fallback methods. Consult the documentation
> >>   * of :c:func:`memblock_alloc_internal` and
> >> - * :c:func:`memblock_alloc_range_nid` functions for more elaboarte
> >> + * :c:func:`memblock_alloc_range_nid` functions for more elaborate
> > 
> > While on it, could you please replace the
> > :c:func:`memblock_alloc_range_nid` construct with
> > memblock_alloc_range_nid()?
> > 
> > And that would be really great to see all the :c:func:`foo` changed to
> > foo().
> > 
> 
> Sure. BTW, do you want convert all the markups too?
> 
>     :c:type:`foo` -> struct foo
>     %FOO -> FOO
>     ``foo`` -> foo
>     **foo** -> foo

The documentation toolchain can recognize now foo() as a function and does
not require the :c:func: prefix for that. AFAIK it only works for
functions, so please don't change the rest of the markup.
 
> -- 
> Sincerely,
> Cao jin
> 
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.