Re: [bpf:master 6/15] htmldocs: Warning: Documentation/bpf/btf.rst references a file that doesn't exist: Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc

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

 



On 9/1/23 2:33 PM, Philip Li wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 03:27:19PM +0300, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Fri, 2023-09-01 at 20:23 +0800, Philip Li wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 02:48:26PM +0300, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Fri, 2023-09-01 at 13:22 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 9/1/23 1:18 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Fri, 2023-09-01 at 12:26 +0300, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Fri, 2023-09-01 at 08:29 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
Hi Eduard,

On 9/1/23 2:05 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git master
head:   be8e754cbfac698d6304bb8382c8d18ac74424d3
commit: be4033d36070e44fba766a21ef2d0c24fa04c377 [6/15] docs/bpf: Add description for CO-RE relocations
reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230901/202309010804.G3MpXo59-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309010804.G3MpXo59-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/

All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):

Warning: Documentation/bpf/btf.rst references a file that doesn't exist: Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc
Warning: Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst references a file that doesn't exist: Documentation/bpf/btf

Could you send a follow-up fix for bpf tree?

Hi Daniel,

Will send the fix shortly. Strangely, I did check this syntax locally
before sending the original patch, and had no warnings reported.

I followed reproducing instructions but can't trigger this warning,
tried several sphinx versions:
- 1.7.9
- 2.4.4
- 4.3.2

I'll remove 'Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc' and 'Documentation/bpf/btf'
labels from the documents (and these are link labels, not actual
links), but it looks like I don't have a way to check the results in a
way compatible with test robot.

Strange, perhaps LKP folks could chime in and provide some more guidance e.g.
wrt Sphinx version.

sorry for late info, this one is using 2.4.4 sphinx, the full make command is
like

	make W=1 --keep-going HOSTCC=gcc-12 CC=gcc-12 -j32 ARCH=x86_64 SPHINXOPTS=-j1 htmldocs	

Hi Philip,

Thanks for info, I'll keep 2.4.4 locally to be in sync with test robot.

You are welcome. For the robot side, we actually read the version from
Documentation/sphinx/requirements.txt of the test commit.

For this series, it is 2.4.4. And we also support other versions like
1.4.9, 1.7.9.

Side-note: @Philip, if it's not too much effort, would it be possible to add
version info into the reproduce file as a # comment in future?

https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230901/202309010804.G3MpXo59-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/reproduce

Anyway, thanks everyone!



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux