Jon, Andrew, How do you suggest to continue with this? On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 09:38:58AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > (added akpm) > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 03:46:07PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 21:22:16 +0200 > > Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > These patches convert files in Documentation/vm to ReST format, add an > > > initial index and link it to the top level documentation. > > > > > > There are no contents changes in the documentation, except few spelling > > > fixes. The relatively large diffstat stems from the indentation and > > > paragraph wrapping changes. > > > > > > I've tried to keep the formatting as consistent as possible, but I could > > > miss some places that needed markup and add some markup where it was not > > > necessary. > > > > So I've been pondering on these for a bit. It looks like a reasonable and > > straightforward RST conversion, no real complaints there. But I do have a > > couple of concerns... > > > > One is that, as we move documentation into RST, I'm really trying to > > organize it a bit so that it is better tuned to the various audiences we > > have. For example, ksm.txt is going to be of interest to sysadmin types, > > who might want to tune it. mmu_notifier.txt is of interest to ... > > somebody, but probably nobody who is thinking in user space. And so on. > > > > So I would really like to see this material split up and put into the > > appropriate places in the RST hierarchy - admin-guide for administrative > > stuff, core-api for kernel development topics, etc. That, of course, > > could be done separately from the RST conversion, but I suspect I know > > what will (or will not) happen if we agree to defer that for now :) > > Well, I was actually planning on doing that ;-) > > My thinking was to start with mechanical RST conversion and then to start > working on the contents and ordering of the documentation. Some of the > existing files, e.g. ksm.txt, can be moved as is into the appropriate > places, others, like transhuge.txt should be at least split into admin/user > and developer guides. > > Another problem with many of the existing mm docs is that they are rather > developer notes and it wouldn't be really straight forward to assign them > to a particular topic. > > I believe that keeping the mm docs together will give better visibility of > what (little) mm documentation we have and will make the updates easier. > The documents that fit well into a certain topic could be linked there. For > instance: > > ------------------------- > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst > index 5bb9161..8f6c6e6 100644 > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ configure specific aspects of kernel behavior to your liking. > pm/index > thunderbolt > LSM/index > + vm/index > > .. only:: subproject and html > > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/vm/index.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/vm/index.rst > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..d86f1c8 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/vm/index.rst > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ > +============================================== > +Knobs and Buttons for Memory Management Tuning > +============================================== > + > +* :ref:`ksm <ksm>` > ------------------------- > > > The other is the inevitable merge conflicts that changing that many doc > > files will create. Sending the patches through Andrew could minimize > > that, I guess, or at least make it his problem. Alternatively, we could > > try to do it as an end-of-merge-window sort of thing. I can try to manage > > that, but an ack or two from the mm crowd would be nice to have. > > I can rebase on top of Andrew's tree if that would help to minimize the > merge conflicts. > > > Thanks, > > > > jon > > > > -- > Sincerely yours, > Mike. > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
