On Fri, 29 May 2020 13:00:12 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > +**Thermal Pressure**: > > I find these attached headers really hard to read. And what's with the > ** stuff ? > > Other files in this same patch use a different style: > > Header > ------ > test goes here, > > Which I find a lot more readable. Use it here too? Normal headers would seem to be appropriate here, yes. > > +process runs when. In that context, it has the following tasks: > > + > > +* share CPU cores equally among all currently running processes. > > +* pick appropriate process to run next if required, considering scheduling > > + class/policy and process priorities. > > +* balance processes between multiple cores in SMP systems. > > indent the bullets at least one space, like: > > * share CPU cores... > * pick .. > > Write it like you want to read this as a text document. Ignore all that > RST bullshit. The "RST bullshit" can handle a leading space there just fine. > > +Runqueue > > +~~~~~~~~ > > + > > +:c:type:`struct rq <rq>` is the central data structure of process > > I so hate that rst crap; John, can't we teach the thing that anything > called 'struct foo' or 'foo_t' is in fact a C type, just like we did > with foo() being a function? Yes, we can, we're just waiting for somebody (perhaps even me) to find the time to do it. Until then, I think we can probably just leave :c:type: out entirely. jon
