On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:54:09AM +0800, Cao jin wrote: > On 9/11/19 10:42 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:08:56AM +0800, Cao jin wrote: > >> elaboarte -> elaborate > >> architecure -> architecture > >> compltes -> completes > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Cao jin <caoj.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> mm/memblock.c | 6 +++--- > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c > >> index 7d4f61ae666a..0d0f92003d18 100644 > >> --- a/mm/memblock.c > >> +++ b/mm/memblock.c > >> @@ -83,16 +83,16 @@ > >> * Note, that both API variants use implict assumptions about allowed > >> * memory ranges and the fallback methods. Consult the documentation > >> * of :c:func:`memblock_alloc_internal` and > >> - * :c:func:`memblock_alloc_range_nid` functions for more elaboarte > >> + * :c:func:`memblock_alloc_range_nid` functions for more elaborate > > > > While on it, could you please replace the > > :c:func:`memblock_alloc_range_nid` construct with > > memblock_alloc_range_nid()? > > > > And that would be really great to see all the :c:func:`foo` changed to > > foo(). > > > > Sure. BTW, do you want convert all the markups too? > > :c:type:`foo` -> struct foo > %FOO -> FOO > ``foo`` -> foo > **foo** -> foo The documentation toolchain can recognize now foo() as a function and does not require the :c:func: prefix for that. AFAIK it only works for functions, so please don't change the rest of the markup. > -- > Sincerely, > Cao jin > > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
