linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation/kernel-parameters: Move the kernel build options

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: <20251119150616.GDaR3c6MW9VkFKpH_C@fat_crate.local>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 16:06:16 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...nel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/kernel-parameters: Move the kernel build
 options

On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 09:20:36AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> So I applied this, but it's dancing around the real problem: that this
> material is split into two files in the first place.  I honestly don't
> remember why it was done that way

I was wondering the same thing.

> - maybe just to ease the RST transition back in 2016.  I think we should
> really just pull all of kernel-parameters.txt into the RST file.

Except the .txt file has its own formatting and if the conversion to .rst
makes it more unreadable due to the .rst formatting gunk, that would be a step
in the wrong direction, I'd say.

So including it verbatim as it is done now looks like a good compromise.
Unless you have a better idea...

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette