Re: [RFC PATCH v5 2/3] docs: scheduler: Add scheduler overview documentation

[Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>]

On Fri, 29 May 2020 13:00:12 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> > +**Thermal Pressure**:  
> 
> I find these attached headers really hard to read. And what's with the
> ** stuff ?
> 
> Other files in this same patch use a different style:
> 
> Header
> ------
> test goes here,
> 
> Which I find a lot more readable. Use it here too?

Normal headers would seem to be appropriate here, yes.

> > +process runs when. In that context, it has the following tasks:
> > +
> > +* share CPU cores equally among all currently running processes.
> > +* pick appropriate process to run next if required, considering scheduling
> > +  class/policy and process priorities.
> > +* balance processes between multiple cores in SMP systems.  
> 
> indent the bullets at least one space, like:
> 
>  * share CPU cores...
>  * pick ..
> 
> Write it like you want to read this as a text document. Ignore all that
> RST bullshit.

The "RST bullshit" can handle a leading space there just fine.

> > +Runqueue
> > +~~~~~~~~
> > +
> > +:c:type:`struct rq <rq>` is the central data structure of process  
> 
> I so hate that rst crap; John, can't we teach the thing that anything
> called 'struct foo' or 'foo_t' is in fact a C type, just like we did
> with foo() being a function?

Yes, we can, we're just waiting for somebody (perhaps even me) to find the
time to do it. Until then, I think we can probably just leave :c:type: out
entirely.

jon