[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y7WvJzquc8r81X9u@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 06:53:59 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] docs: cgroup-v1: formatting improv for "Memory
Resource Controller" doc
On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 04:35:20PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com> writes:
>
> > "Memory Resource Controller" CGroup v1 documentation has been in reST
> > since 99c8b231ae6c6c ("docs: cgroup-v1: convert docs to ReST and rename to *.rst"). The current doc look is kinda ugly, so improve the formatting (only
> > htmldocs is tested).
> >
> > The first patch is a fix for recently reported htmldocs warning, which can
> > be pickup separately from rest of the series.
> >
> > Bagas Sanjaya (10):
> > docs: cgroup-v1: extend underline of section 8
> > docs: cgroup-v1: replace custom note constructs with appropriate
> > admonition blocks
> > docs: cgroup-v1: wrap remaining admonitions in admonition blocks
> > docs: cgroup-v1: use code block for locking order schema
> > docs: cgroup-v1: fix footnotes
> > docs: cgroup-v1: move hierarchy of accounting caption
> > docs: cgroup-v1: use bullet lists for list of stat file tables
> > docs: cgroup-v1: use make swap extension subsections subsections
> > docs: cgroup-v1: add internal cross-references
> > docs: cgroup-v1: use numbered lists for user interface setup
> >
> > .../admin-guide/cgroup-v1/cgroups.rst | 2 +
> > .../admin-guide/cgroup-v1/memory.rst | 290 ++++++++++--------
> > 2 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 134 deletions(-)
>
> Tejun, do you have an opinion on these? I'm not really sure we need to
> be tweaking the v1 docs at this point, but I don't see anything in here
> that seems harmful either...
One of the patches doesn't apply because it's against -next (it's
referencing -next sha1 too) and the series feels a bit overly elaborate but,
I mean, why not? I was planning to pick up the series after the holidays
unless you wanna route it through the doc tree.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists