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=unavailable 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 B86C97D910 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:53:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726557AbfFYNww (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:52:52 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]:60692 "EHLO ms.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726550AbfFYNww (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:52:52 -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 BC37130A; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:52:50 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Gary R Hook Cc: Joe Perches , "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: <20190625075250.3a912863@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: References: <156140322426.29777.8610751479936722967.stgit@taos> <23a5979082c89d7028409ad9ae082840411e1ca6.camel@perches.com> <977bc7c484ef55ff78de51d7555afcc3c3350b1e.camel@perches.com> <20190624143748.7fcfe623@lwn.net> 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 Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:33:27 +0000 Gary R Hook wrote: > > 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. > > So I'm unclear: > > 1) would you prefer I wait on your 5.3 change being fully committed, > 2) add your change to my local tree and use it, then submit an update > patchset that depends upon it, or > 3) re-submit now (using the current method) with suggested changes? I would just not mark up function() at all, and the right thing will happen to it in the very near future. Thanks, jon