Re: [PATCH 0/3] Clean up crypto documentation

[Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:29:42 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:

> > Finally, would you prefer a v2 of the patch set? Happy to do
> > whatever is preferred, of course.  
> 
> Whatever Jonathan decides is fine with me.
> Mine was just a plea to avoid unnecessarily
> making the source text harder to read as
> that's what I mostly use.

Usually Herbert seems to take crypto docs, so it's not necessarily up to
me :)

I don't see much that's objectionable here.  But...

> I don't know if this extension is valid yet, but
> I believe just using <function_name>() is more
> readable as text than ``<function_name>`` or
> :c:func:`<function_name>`

It's been "valid" since I wrote it...it's just not upstream yet :)  I
expect it to be in 5.3, though.  So the best way to refer to a kernel
function, going forward, is just function() with no markup needed.

Thanks,

jon