linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Rewrite the top-level index.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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:59:26 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Rewrite the top-level index.rst

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 09:34:18AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> writes:
> 
> > The top-level index.rst file is the entry point for the kernel's
> > documentation, especially for readers of the HTML output.  It is currently
> > a mess containing everything we thought to throw in there.  Firefox says it
> > would require 26 pages of paper to print it.  That is not a user-friendly
> > introduction.
> >
> > This series aims to improve our documentation entry point with a focus on
> > rewriting index.rst.  The result is, IMO, simpler and more approachable.
> > For anybody who wants to see the rendered results without building the
> > docs, have a look at:
> >
> >   https://static.lwn.net/kerneldoc/
> 
> So I think I'll go ahead and drop this into docs-next shortly.  Thanks
> to everybody who has commented.
> 
> This, of course, has the potential to create conflicts with other 6.1
> work that touches Documentation/index.rst.  Amazingly, as far as I can
> tell, there is only one linux-next commit touching that file - the
> addition of the Rust docs.  We'll want to be sure that doesn't get lost
> during the merge window.  I'll be sure to include a suitable heads-up in
> my pull request.

I can add a note in my PR of Rust too -- how should I suggest it be
resolved?

-- 
Kees Cook