[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200213202146.02ebc959@heffalump.sk2.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:21:46 +0100
From: Stephen Kitt <steve@....org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] docs: pretty up sysctl/kernel.rst
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the quick review!
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:52:38 -0700, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:46:56 +0100
> Stephen Kitt <steve@....org> wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst
> > b/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst index
> > def074807cee..1de8f0b199b1 100644 ---
> > a/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst +++
> > b/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst @@ -2,262 +2,188 @@
> > Documentation for /proc/sys/kernel/
> > ===================================
> >
> > -kernel version 2.2.10
> > +Kernel version 2.2.10
>
> I honestly can't see the value of fixing up a line like that. When I
> encounter a kernel document that references something like 2.2.10, I assume
> it's full of dust and cobwebs. I'd just take that out.
Indeed, and I do intend to update it to 5.5. I was planning on ultimately
removing the line above, and only leaving the line mentioning the kernel
version below.
> > Copyright (c) 1998, 1999, Rik van Riel <riel@...linux.org>
> >
> > -Copyright (c) 2009, Shen Feng<shen@...fujitsu.com>
> > +Copyright (c) 2009, Shen Feng <shen@...fujitsu.com>
Would it also be OK to move these to the end of the document?
> > -For general info and legal blurb, please look in index.rst.
> > +For general info and legal blurb, please look in :doc:`index`.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > This file contains documentation for the sysctl files in
> > -/proc/sys/kernel/ and is valid for Linux kernel version 2.2.
> > +``/proc/sys/kernel/`` and is valid for Linux kernel version 2.2.
>
> This could be tweaked as well. If, after your work, you think it's still
> not current, a warning to that effect should be put in instead.
>
> There's some other dated stuff below that can go as well. Probably this is
> best done in a separate patch.
Agreed.
Regards,
Stephen
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists