On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 02:09:28AM +0000, Dave Thaler wrote: > 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 :) No problem, the process can be a bit arcane :-) > > > > ============= ======= =============== ==================== > > ============ > > > 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. Yeah, definition list items are weird. Not a huge deal either way, but my preference would be to just force the issue by using the ** ... ** syntax to make it bold. Sounds like we're in agreement. Thanks, David
