From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E467D08A for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:54:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730951AbeLTPyE (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Dec 2018 10:54:04 -0500 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]:53534 "EHLO ms.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728172AbeLTPyE (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Dec 2018 10:54:04 -0500 Received: from lwn.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 13A726D9; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:54:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:54:03 -0700 From: Jonathan Corbet To: NeilBrown Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: convert path-lookup from markdown to resturctured text Message-ID: <20181220085403.5538683d@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <87h8fmcnoi.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> References: <87k1l9dgx9.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <87sgzc7v50.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181205124644.3f8a452a@lwn.net> <87woonelit.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181206100912.535b351d@lwn.net> <87h8fmcnoi.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> Organization: LWN.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 09:58:37 +1100 NeilBrown wrote: > However we now have a stub section "Pathname lookup" which serves only > to introduce another stub sectoin "Pathname lookup in Linux", which does > little more than introduce the rest of the section. > This seems inelegant, and is probably why I went for the "include" > approach. > > What would you think of something more like the following? Sorry for the delay ... $EXCUSES ... This makes sense; I went ahead and applied it with your SOB on it; let me know if that's not what you wanted. Thanks, jon