On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:22 AM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Fox Chen <foxhlchen@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:25 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:33:00AM +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:17 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > > You can drop ``..`` from around function named which are followed with
> >> > > (). d74b0d31ddde ("Docs: An initial automarkup extension for sphinx")
> >> > > marks them up automatically.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Got it, thanks for letting me know. But I will still use them in this
> >> > patch series to keep consistency with the remaining parts of the
> >> > document.
> >>
> >> Well, you weren't. For example:
> >>
> >> +As the last step of ``walk_component()``, ``step_into()`` will be called either
> >> +directly from walk_component() or from handle_dots(). It calls
> >> +``handle_mount()``, to check and handle mount points, in which a new
> >>
> >> Neither of the functions on the second line were using ``.
> >
> > Oh, That was a mistake, They should've been wrapped with ``.
> > Thanks for pointing it out. I will go through the whole patch set and
> > fix this type of inconsistency in V3.
>
> Please, if possible, go toward the bare function() form rather than
> using literals...it's easier to read and the docs system will
> automatically create cross references for you.
>
> Thanks,
>
> jon
Ok, If you have no problem with that inconsistency, I will go with the
bare one in v3.
thanks,
fox
