[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzYi8ELhNhxPikFQLQmB7HAXr7sRsyKi6QYJs+XBoDiwhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 14:40:43 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: format fixes for BPF helpers and
bpftool documentation
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:15 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com> wrote:
>
> This series contains minor fixes (or harmonisation edits) for the
> bpftool-link documentation (first patch) and BPF helpers documentation
> (last two patches), so that all related man pages can build without errors.
>
> Quentin Monnet (3):
> tools: bpftool: fix formatting in bpftool-link documentation
> bpf: fix formatting in documentation for BPF helpers
> tools, bpf: synchronise BPF UAPI header with tools
>
> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 87 ++++++++++---------
> .../bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-link.rst | 2 +-
> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 87 ++++++++++---------
> 3 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.20.1
>
This obviously looks good to me:
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
But do you think we can somehow prevent issues like this? Consider
adding building/testing of documentation to selftests or something.
Not sure if that will catch all the issues you've fixed, but that
would be a good start.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists