linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] Documentation: kvm: Fix a section number

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: <87o6wy8who.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 11:48:51 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Xin Li <xin@...or.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] Documentation: kvm: Fix a section number

Xin Li <xin@...or.com> writes:

> On 4/14/2025 10:05 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>>> -7.37 KVM_CAP_ARM_WRITABLE_IMP_ID_REGS
>>> +7.42 KVM_CAP_ARM_WRITABLE_IMP_ID_REGS
>>>   -------------------------------------
>> The fix seems fine but ... I have to ask ... do the section numbers buy
>> anything here?  We have a documentation system that can do nice
>> cross-references when needed, so I'm not sure that these numbers add
>> anything other than a bit of manual maintenance hassle.
>
> So you prefer to get rid of the section numbering?
>
> Looks it makes it simpler to maintain the documentation.  But that would
> anyway be another serial patches, right?

*I* would prefer it, but that call is really up to the KVM folks, not
me.  Their preference far outweighs mine on this ... I'm just venting :)

Thanks,

jon