Re: [PATCH] kernel-parameters.rst: fix document warnings v2

[Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>]

Bartlomiej Kubik <kubik.bartlomiej@gmail.com> writes:

> Fixed missing definite article "states that the parameter" as suggested.
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Kubik <kubik.bartlomiej@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst
> index 445248787e77..7bf8cc7df6b5 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst
> @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ need or coordination with <Documentation/arch/x86/boot.rst>.
>  There are also arch-specific kernel-parameters not documented here.
>  
>  Note that ALL kernel parameters listed below are CASE SENSITIVE, and that
> -a trailing = on the name of any parameter states that parameter will
> +a trailing = on the name of any parameter states that the parameter will
>  be entered as an environment variable, whereas its absence indicates that

Thank you for working to improve our documentation.  That said, there
are a number of problems to address here.

- The patch does not apply to docs-next, or to any recent kernel
  release.  Which version did you generate the patch against?

- When you do a "v2" patch, you should include, after the "---" line, a
  summary of what changed since the previous version.  That is
  especially true when you have seemingly just dropped one of the
  changes you made the first time around?

  Ah, I think I see...you generated this on top of your previous
  version?  That explains why it didn't apply.  Please do not do that;
  when a patch needs changes due to review comments, recreate the patch.

- "Fix a warning" is rarely a good subject line for a patch; you should
  say what you actually did.  In this case, "replace a duplicated word"
  or some such would be better.

- Finally, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst asks that
  changelogs be written in the imperative form.  I am not a stickler for
  that, but some other maintainers definitely are, so it is a good habit
  to adopt for all of your patches.

Thanks,

jon