On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:33:27 +0000 Gary R Hook <ghook@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > So I'm unclear: > > 1) would you prefer I wait on your 5.3 change being fully committed, > 2) add your change to my local tree and use it, then submit an update > patchset that depends upon it, or > 3) re-submit now (using the current method) with suggested changes? I would just not mark up function() at all, and the right thing will happen to it in the very near future. Thanks, jon
