On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 10:34:30 +0100 Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx> wrote: > > If you think you have "any more" update candidates, feel free to make > > an update "patch" and send to us. > > I pointed a few change possibilities out already. I can not respond to requests only for possibility. > > That will be the next step. > > I got the impression that we are in the process of constructing another patch together > which will fix known wording weaknesses. Would you mean the broken EBNF part? Yeah, maybe, but it is another story. I decided to drop it this time. You can refine it but please use better format instead of such incomplete one. > By the way: > I wonder about the shown version identifier. > Will the patch numbering need also further considerations? No. > >> … > >>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/bootconfig.rst > >> … > >>> +If you think that kernel/init options become too long to write in boot-loader > >>> +configuration file or you want to comment on each option, the boot > >>> +configuration may be suitable. … > >> > >> Would you like to specify any settings in the boot configuration file > >> because the provided storage capacity would be too limited by the kernel command line? > > > > Yes. > > How will affected places be improved after such an agreement? Would you please make a patch of new sentence? Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
