On Mon, 2019-06-24 at 14:37 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > 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. When that's actually "valid" I suggest doing: $ git ls-files -- 'Documentation/*.rst' | \ xargs perl -pi -e 's/:c:func:`(\w+)(?:\(\))?`/\1()/g; s/``(\w+)\(\)``/\1()/g' so function designations in Documentation are simpler to read. Right now that's: $ git diff --shortstat Documentation/ 125 files changed, 1680 insertions(+), 1680 deletions(-)
