On 6/24/19 3:37 PM, 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. 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'm thinking that this will go in after the referenced patch, so (2) is the preferred choice? grh
