From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C93D07D2F0 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 20:37:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728872AbfFXUhu (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:37:50 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]:45466 "EHLO ms.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726920AbfFXUhu (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:37:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (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 808AD35A; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 20:37:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:37:48 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Joe Perches Cc: Gary R Hook , "Hook, Gary" , "herbert@gondor.apana.org.au" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Clean up crypto documentation Message-ID: <20190624143748.7fcfe623@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <977bc7c484ef55ff78de51d7555afcc3c3350b1e.camel@perches.com> References: <156140322426.29777.8610751479936722967.stgit@taos> <23a5979082c89d7028409ad9ae082840411e1ca6.camel@perches.com> <977bc7c484ef55ff78de51d7555afcc3c3350b1e.camel@perches.com> Organization: LWN.net X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) 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, 24 Jun 2019 13:29:42 -0700 Joe Perches 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 () is more > readable as text than ```` or > :c:func:`` 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