linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] Documentation: dev-tools: use literal block instead of code-block

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]

Message-ID: <95dcdcd3-fb48-6e5c-3262-7aacaac71e78@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:10:39 -0500
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Bird, Tim" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Rae Moar <rmr167@...il.com>,
        Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com>,
        Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>, kernelci@...ups.io,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] Documentation: dev-tools: use literal block
 instead of code-block

Hi Jon,

On 3/17/22 03:43, David Gow wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:26 AM <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...y.com>
>>
>> KTAP Specification: Change code-block directives to straightforward
>> literal blocks since the blocks do not contain code.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...y.com>
>> ---
> 
> This looks good to me.
> 
> I'd personally rather push this through independently of the KTAP 2.0
> spec updates, as it's really just a minor formatting change to the
> spec, and it has no impact on the actual KTAP format.
> 
> So, if we can accept this independently, that'd be swell.
> 
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>

I got distracted with other tasks, just now returning to this.

There has been no other comment in the last month, so I think it
is fair to go ahead and ask you to pull this patch.

Can you pull just this patch (patch 2/2) or would you prefer that
I do a version 2 which does not contain patch 1/2?

-Frank

> 
> Cheers,
> -- David
> 
> 
>>  Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst | 18 ++++++++----------
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
>> index 37b5dc61bfb8..b9a57ceddd4f 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
>> @@ -115,34 +115,32 @@ The diagnostic data field is optional, and results which have neither a
>>  directive nor any diagnostic data do not need to include the "#" field
>>  separator.
>>
>> -Example result lines include:
>> -
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +Example result lines include::
>>
>>         ok 1 test_case_name
>>
>>  The test "test_case_name" passed.
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>>         not ok 1 test_case_name
>>
>>  The test "test_case_name" failed.
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>>         ok 1 test # SKIP necessary dependency unavailable
>>
>>  The test "test" was SKIPPED with the diagnostic message "necessary dependency
>>  unavailable".
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>>         not ok 1 test # TIMEOUT 30 seconds
>>
>>  The test "test" timed out, with diagnostic data "30 seconds".
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>>         ok 5 check return code # rcode=0
>>
>> @@ -202,7 +200,7 @@ allowed to be either indented or not indented.
>>
>>  An example of a test with two nested subtests:
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>>         KTAP version 1
>>         1..1
>> @@ -215,7 +213,7 @@ An example of a test with two nested subtests:
>>
>>  An example format with multiple levels of nested testing:
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>>         KTAP version 1
>>         1..2
>> @@ -250,7 +248,7 @@ nested version line, uses a line of the form
>>
>>  Example KTAP output
>>  --------------------
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>>         KTAP version 1
>>         1..1
>> --
>> Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...y.com>
>>