linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Doc/fs/ntfs3: Fix rst format and make it cleaner

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, 14 Sep 2021 14:53:41 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@...il.com>,
        Konstantin Komarov <almaz.alexandrovich@...agon-software.com>,
        ntfs3@...ts.linux.dev
Cc:     Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@...il.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Doc/fs/ntfs3: Fix rst format and make it cleaner

Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@...il.com> writes:

> Current ntfs3 rst documentation is broken. I turn table to list table as
> this is current Linux documentation quide line. Simple table also did
> not quite work in our situation as we need to span rows together.
>
> It still look quite good as text so we did not loss anything. This will
> also make diffing quite bit more pleasure.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@...il.com>
> ---
> As this is pretty new to me and Konstantin I CC Jonathan because he is
> maintainer of documentation section. Do you want to get all
> documentation patches to you about ntfs3? This probably still goes
> through our tree? I ask because checkpatch will give your address also
> and it is not clear to me at least should I send these to you also.

Don't hesitate to CC people when in doubt - it's the kernel way :)

As for merging, documentation patches should go through whatever is the
best path.  Some subsystem maintainers want me to take them, others want
to handle them themselves.  It sounds like you're in the latter camp, so
I'll assume I don't need to apply this one; let me know if I've
misunderstood.

Thanks,

jon