On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:29:42 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Finally, would you prefer a v2 of the patch set? Happy to do > > whatever is preferred, of course. > > Whatever Jonathan decides is fine with me. > Mine was just a plea to avoid unnecessarily > making the source text harder to read as > that's what I mostly use. Usually Herbert seems to take crypto docs, so it's not necessarily up to me :) I don't see much that's objectionable here. But... > I don't know if this extension is valid yet, but > I believe just using <function_name>() is more > readable as text than ``<function_name>`` or > :c:func:`<function_name>` It's been "valid" since I wrote it...it's just not upstream yet :) I expect it to be in 5.3, though. So the best way to refer to a kernel function, going forward, is just function() with no markup needed. Thanks, jon
