linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/20] Documentation: locking: Describe seqlock design and usage

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

Date:   Tue, 7 Jul 2020 14:47:42 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        "Sebastian A. Siewior" <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/20] Documentation: locking: Describe seqlock design
 and usage

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 12:12:01PM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 11:04:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 07:44:33AM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > > +Sequence counters (:c:type:`seqcount_t`)
> > > +========================================
> >
> > > +.. code-block:: c
> >
> > I so hate RST, of course it's C. Also, ISTR Jon saying you can leave
> > that all out without issue.
> 
> There you go again.
> 
>   linux$ git grep 'code-block:: c' | wc -l
>   ==>  470
> 
>   linux$ git grep ':ref:' | wc -l
>   ==>  3171
> 
>   linux$ git grep ':c:type:' | wc -l
>   ==>  1533
> 
> In writing this, Documentation/doc-guide/ was followed, and literally
> the thousands of examples above.

Then this is a very bad guide. Jon, why is it recommending such horrible
crap? Should we add another field to MAINTAINERS to indicate RST/TXT
preference? Because I'm getting fed up trying to fix up all this
unreadable gunk.

I'm >< close to writing an script that will unconditionally and silently
convert everything to txt before committing.

> But honestly, I don't want to block merging documentation because of
> this, and the point of making the docs as readable as possible from text
> editors also has merit.
> 
> So... I'll just make that file as "RST-lite" as possible.

Thanks!