On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote: > I am not at all opposed to a more proper solution that might, in the > long term, produce more deterministic results. I can even try to work in > that direction. But this is something that can be done now that, IMO, > doesn't in any way close off a better implementation in the future. If we > agree that we should automatically generate references for occurrences of > "function()", we can change how that is actually done later. > > I'll look into this further, but my inclination is to go forward with what > I have now. It's simple and easy to understand, and doesn't seem to screw > up anywhere in the current body of kernel docs as far as I can tell. Fair enough. It's most important that this doesn't block us from switching to a different implementation later once someone figures it out. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
