RE: [PATCH] bpf, docs: Use consistent names for the same field

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



David Vernet <void@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> In the future, if sending subsequent iterations of a patch, could you please
> follow the typical versioning  and changelog convention described in [0]?

Thanks for being patient with a newcomer to this particular process :)

> >  =============  =======  ===============  ====================
> ============
> >  32 bits (MSB)  16 bits  4 bits           4 bits                8 bits (LSB)
> >  =============  =======  ===============  ====================
> ============
> > -immediate      offset   source register  destination register  opcode
> > +imm            offset   src              dst                   opcode
> 
> What's the rationale for changing source register and destination register to
> src and dst respectively here? Below you clarify that they mean something
> other than register number after this section in the document, so why not
> just leave them as is here to avoid any confusion?

Fair point, will update.

> Can we make all of these bold, just to slightly improve readability.
> E.g.:
> 
> **imm**

My view was that it was up to the RST renderer to do so. For example,
if you look at https://github.com/ebpffoundation/ebpf-docs/blob/update/rst/instruction-set.rst which is what I used
to validate the look of this patch plus other patches, it is already
bolded because the github RST renderer bolds definition list terms.

On the other hand, https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ebpffoundation/ebpf-docs/pdf/draft-thaler-bpf-isa.html#section-3 is the output of RST -> xml2rfcv3 -> HTML
doesn't do so.  That could be addressed either by me updating the
RST -> xml2rfcv3 converter to automatically bold (i.e., add <strong> to the XML)
or by adding an explicit bolding as you suggest.

I guess the benefit of adding the bolding into the RST itself is if there
are other RST renderers that don't automatically bold definition list terms but
we want them to.  I see other RST files in the Documentation/bpf directory
vary in terms of whether any explicit bolding is used, but I see maps.rst
does so, so I will go ahead and do this and make the RST -> xml2rfcv3
converter map bolding correctly to xml.

Dave




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux