From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8CE2136672; Sun, 22 Mar 2026 20:35:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774211724; cv=none; b=eFSsBoOaxgIXLhMzWSJFKD3c/ZD4TKvrVS8T7icDnvMwWCMlI8Qd8depr6Gikq9p6ZNVnjK6xWydQpHwz2+/PaBVL4WiL4cmUiLXGrPGGR/ZHW91FAMLBALc68/EUVxGFIsdyWbRBqKO+wYecc5Xd7bk3/mVk41FWkECcmY6iiM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774211724; c=relaxed/simple; bh=G7vENXpDNKDzMT6T90HvsTuR6BdiHPmMZqJojxELaws=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=L3WFtFcvwOljVyi+xQlaU2rGYgeSC7NOz1uOvJ0tzBARmtwse6XsIkmAyXKl4m5GP0aTGJBr1pg9EDEvDJuH+F9iEuHyoUC/Rr0U/E/zF15nVJMqMwnYQDXbzJyDXcZNjO7biEnsQU+mjCETaymwKpG9o0e92PBRBYcm8TaQozo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=J21rt7aS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="J21rt7aS" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 31DD6411E2 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1774211722; bh=oimrN5cYHx/hTjQ35w0ll0C/DPG7NSwSdNgwyE09Ztw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=J21rt7aSp+kT9V+f95dyAWbzBWVLf3v3bM1STT6ozYOyj6tXFk9yukDYhTDtlxM8+ bu3Smj6d2/9ChTN25+pBEmaclPxCmssXP653QfqZZ8QZ/adDAGkhY0orItWSwhm+to lz8HluJzyd0JxxWJ8xAnPcJ0E7AzJfGZQN2sa6G0tOi2XTQ4NYFxs3UADoEVIiR3LA 3mzwE8qK6ZqckuokdCGTpgSfnW8nL3hNRzeP6J6q1NFlhTu9EojQXeqCnrkNVPiR1u biTd4ytKWVKfI7ybAu+5yYRXAKODDExrBbZdCYjp03xo8bsdpQtpMIfDpTerSd7Xkf Na8QL71kyRD8A== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:27b::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 31DD6411E2; Sun, 22 Mar 2026 20:35:22 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Rito Rhymes , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Cc: Shuah Khan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, Rito Rhymes Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] docs: examples of pages affected by C API signature overflow In-Reply-To: <20260322193740.68784-1-rito@ritovision.com> References: <20260321142559.26005-2-rito@ritovision.com> <20260322193740.68784-1-rito@ritovision.com> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 14:35:21 -0600 Message-ID: <874im7eh6e.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Rito Rhymes writes: > Examples of affected pages on docs.kernel.org this patch improves: > core-api/genalloc.html > userspace-api/iommufd.html > userspace-api/liveupdate.html > core-api/liveupdate.html > arch/sh/index.html > arch/x86/sgx.html > devicetree/kernel-api.html > userspace-api/fwctl/fwctl-cxl.html > driver-api/regulator.html > driver-api/reset.html > driver-api/s390-drivers.html > driver-api/scsi.html > driver-api/spi.html > driver-api/target.html > driver-api/wbrf.html > driver-api/wmi.html > > Rito Rhymes (1): > docs: contain horizontal overflow in C API descriptions > > Documentation/sphinx-static/custom.css | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) This is a general comment applying to most of the patches you have sent: is not a typical or particularly helpful cover letter. The cover letter tells reviewers what the series as a whole does; this one does not. Perhaps more to the point, a cover letter is rarely warranted for a single patch; just put any relevant information into the changelog of the patch itself. In this case, some examples of the problem being solved are certainly warranted, though perhaps not so many as given here. They should be in the patch changelog so that somebody wondering, years from now, why the patch was applied can gain that understanding. The names of HTML files are perhaps not ideal; since you're talking about docs.kernel.org in particular, you could give URLs that people could view directly. So, for example: https://docs.kernel.org/6.19/core-api/genalloc.html Note the explicit version so that the problem will be findable in the distant future, even after the fix is applied. Thanks, jon