linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, doc: use internal linking for link to netdev FAQ

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:   Mon, 13 Mar 2023 08:56:38 -0500
From:   David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        Linux BPF <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Documentation <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, doc: use internal linking for link to
 netdev FAQ

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 07:37:25AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> David Vernet <void@...ifault.com> writes:
> 
> > Sure, but there are practicalities to consider here. It takes O(minutes)
> > to do a full docs build, as opposed to O(seconds). I've done reviews of
> > docs patches where the engineer tried to build the docs tree, but
> > thought it was hung and ended up cancelling it. Full docs builds also
> > unfortunately spew quite a few warnings in other subtrees. You have to
> > carefully wade through the warnings in those other subtrees to ensure
> > you haven't added any new ones.
> >
> > It's hard enough to get people to write documentation. It's also hard
> > enough to get them to test building their documentation before
> > submitting it. I think there is a lot of value in being able to build
> > the documentation for the subtree you're contributing to, and be able to
> > have some expectation that it builds cleanly. Let's not make it more
> > difficult for the people who are actually adding substantive
> > documentation.
> 
> I get your point, but that is essentially saying that there should be no
> linkages between our documentation subtrees, which defeats much of the
> purpose of using a system like Sphinx.

I certainly agree that inter-subtree links are great to have, though in
my opinion, other features such as linking kernel-doc comments, auto
section labeling, etc make Sphinx very useful in their own right. But
yes, having inter-subtree links is of course a useful feature as well.

> In this specific case, though, there is a better solution.  Text like:
> 
>   see the netdev FAQ (Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst)
> 
> will add links in the built docs, and also tells readers of the
> plain-text files where they should be looking.  Without adding warnings.

Nice, seems like the best of both worlds. A syntax clarification
question: are you saying that this would work?

> see the `netdev-FAQ`_.
>
>   <snip>
>
> .. _netdev-FAQ: Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst

Or is it required to have the full path inline in the text, as in your
example:

>   see the netdev FAQ (Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst)

The benefit of the former is of course that you only have to specify the
link in one place.

> For the bigger problem, the right answer is to start using intersphinx.
> I guess I need to get serious about playing with that.

Based on a quick online search, that indeed sounds like the ideal
solution.

Thanks,
David