On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 08:24:22PM +0000, Günther Noack wrote: > Hello! Hello! > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 04:06:06PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > So you could really use man9 for internal Landlock stuff. Even if I > > think generated documentation isn't ideal, it's better than nothing. > > Being able to use man(1) for reading kernel documentation would still be > > a nice feature. > > > > And while I can't run all the linters that I run on hand-written docs on > > generated pages (because generated source necessarily triggers many > > false positives), I could still run some, which would trigger some > > accidents in the docs, and would also detect bugs in the software > > translating the docs from one language to another. > > > > So, I'd still recommend you considering man9. > > This is different to the BPF helpers; Landlock's existing man pages document > user space APIs, and the largest part of the kernel-side .rst documentation for > Landlock also covers only user space. Huh! Why does the kernel duplicate what's already in the manual pages? Or does it cover other stuff? > Only a small part of the .rst > documentation is about kernel internals. Hmmmm. I expected it would be mostly for kernel internals, but it seems my guess was wrong. :) > If I understood that correctly, section 9 is supposed to be document things that > are relevant to kernel developers, right? So it doesn't sound like the right > place for the documentation that we have? Yep, that suggestion was due to my wrong idea that the .rst docs were mostly kernel internals. Have a lovely night! Alex > > —Günther > -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
