linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation: fix malformed table in filesystems/proc.rst

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 07:53:23 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Kiss <daniel.kiss@....com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: fix malformed table in
 filesystems/proc.rst

On 6/15/20 6:22 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 23:54:26 -0700
> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/14/20 11:53 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>> Em Sun, 14 Jun 2020 20:33:22 -0700
>>> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> escreveu:
>>>   
>>>> From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
>>>>
>>>> Fix malformed table in "proc.rst" by dropping a needless hyphen ('-').
>>>>
>>>> Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst:548: WARNING: Malformed table.
>>>> Text in column margin in table line 29.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 424037b77519 ("mm: smaps: Report arm64 guarded pages in smaps")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
>>>> Cc: Daniel Kiss <daniel.kiss@....com>
>>>> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>  
>>>
>>> I submitted an identical patch on Jan, 3.   
>>
>> OK. Well, that's disappointing IMHO.
> 
> Sorry if I have caused disappointment.

No problem. I read Jan and not June.

> In any case, that's *June*, not January, that the patch was submitted.  I
> didn't apply it because, since the problem didn't come through docs-next,
> it didn't apply there.  Now that docs-next is caught up with 5.8-rc1 I can
> apply such things again...

thanks.
-- 
~Randy