Hi Michael, > I only just noticed this thread as I was about to send a pull request > for these two commits. > > I think I agree that test_bit() shouldn't move (yet), but I dislike that > the documentation ends up being confusing due to this patch. > > So I'm inclined to append or squash in the patch below, which removes > the new headers from the documentation. The end result is the docs look > more or less the same, just the ordering of some of the functions > changes. But we don't end up with test_bit() under the "Non-atomic" > header, and then also documented in Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt. > > Thoughts? That sounds good to me. Regards, Daniel > > cheers > > > diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst b/Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst > index 2caaeb55e8dd..4ac53a1363f6 100644 > --- a/Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst > +++ b/Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst > @@ -57,21 +57,12 @@ The Linux kernel provides more basic utility functions. > Bit Operations > -------------- > > -Atomic Operations > -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > - > .. kernel-doc:: include/asm-generic/bitops/instrumented-atomic.h > :internal: > > -Non-atomic Operations > -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > - > .. kernel-doc:: include/asm-generic/bitops/instrumented-non-atomic.h > :internal: > > -Locking Operations > -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > - > .. kernel-doc:: include/asm-generic/bitops/instrumented-lock.h > :internal: >
