On Sat, 1 Aug 2020, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 8/1/20 7:37 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > Expanded Chris's Documentation and Kconfig help on tmpfs inode64. > > TMPFS_INODE64 still there, still default N, but writing down its very > > limited limitation does make me wonder again if we want the option. > > > > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Andrew, please fold into tmpfs-support-64-bit-inums-per-sb.patch later. > > > > Randy, you're very active on Documentation and linux-next: may I ask you > > please to try applying this patch to latest, and see if tmpfs.rst comes > > out looking right to you? I'm an old dog still stuck in the days of > > Hi Hugh, > It looks fine. Thank you so much, Randy. > > > tmpfs.txt, hoping to avoid new tricks for a while. Thanks! (Bonus > > points if you can explain what the "::" on line 122 is about. I started > > out reading Documentation/doc-guide/sphinx.rst, but... got diverted. > > Perhaps I should ask Mauro or Jon, but turning for help first to you.) > > That's the correct file. Around line 216, it says: > > * For inserting fixed width text blocks (for code examples, use case > examples, etc.), use ``::`` for anything that doesn't really benefit > from syntax highlighting, especially short snippets. Use > ``.. code-block:: <language>`` for longer code blocks that benefit > from highlighting. For a short snippet of code embedded in the text, use \`\`. > > > so it's just for a (short) code example block, fixed font... Bonus points awarded, thanks...ish. I'll have to look around for more examples of where that's done, and I think it'll only make real sense to me, when I'm further along, producing the proper output, then seeing how bad something looks without the "::". Thanks again, Hugh
