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 CE4151DA23; Tue, 3 Jun 2025 15:05:34 +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=1748963137; cv=none; b=hFf2d2zmDvP4FTsuKttw+p5BT1vt2L3RYsd9K1EspAtaBl7lHpm9DD+ua7R7yW/iTCydDP0JPdBYGPvMTVKPggto5koGQZWJ/CM/jRrPFwCtfyMQFpPV4DF2pss1rwDI6ijmFYE8vBkUacCQECsceBZU55zTfqW52o8CsjCKGgs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748963137; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FxnkA/aVDrvUgAFOoBDT+AXrYzOamGDJS6lZtY1GVK0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=e1Bn962N7Ud26qAEb/6eJ+sA6bKgep4oqo9fKDSS8oPeRspDvI+8wH4F2eSdSeA/eWdSZt/PZ3NEj+wn5/srry+pTc/0kcnZjTjkKrb+goeJQC2RsfaHLwfAdSU47sKIzsv9yTuUKBErjhAnm5xhBpj2QmbuhVdBbJjRm6f5aS4= 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=Lu7WMOiH; 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="Lu7WMOiH" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 722A641ED0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1748963133; bh=u75W7CrJry5PSsWILVQUlbbLDjglIU1VsldGoh1HdL0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Lu7WMOiHQ70LdZl5nv3BhlYL1rAbVKibnwb/foSODhZW3F2E5RHWrPy/VfE2mYyXh IGAd9y5ZMnwUjIysaIgE3YpLlJY87aagUYrBYC9U3UjcpKsYxUIysV06lKORiKXzLg fBCU1IvBKX2CScnaFejNKg5YPRjZvilgYM4e1+Nnp1zcaz1+wq6Y0UnZoxhZnUNdEV i4wxN0fJ/gjEqugyryjhusx6MiwVQsSSez2nZcqCf5RjfxDM2aFXhrKKggUYo00saJ 1P/BvUuYOOz+Ccs0VjOzH9+rmJdFHkKMttTdFA5R6FniC0p0inKL8C0ItnDGRTggfL aRchLLoGELZaw== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:2da9::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 722A641ED0; Tue, 3 Jun 2025 15:05:33 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: Andrew Morton , Suren Baghdasaryan , "Liam R . Howlett" , Vlastimil Babka , Shakeel Butt , Jann Horn , Qi Zheng , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs/mm: expand vma doc to highlight pte freeing, non-vma traversal In-Reply-To: <1b340b71-6664-48ff-b783-aa89fa5b0b16@lucifer.local> References: <20250602210710.106159-1-lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> <87bjr59634.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <9fc9ac50-abce-48bd-979f-2e00b26917b5@lucifer.local> <8734cg9auh.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <87tt4w7uxo.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <1b340b71-6664-48ff-b783-aa89fa5b0b16@lucifer.local> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 09:05:32 -0600 Message-ID: <87ldq87tmr.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 Lorenzo Stoakes writes: > Thanks, I appreciate that. So I want to address your concerns as well as I > can. I think I have misunderstood you a little bit here too (text is a poor > medium, yada yada) so let me try to nail down what I feel is the sensible > way forward: > > 1. Once I am confident I have correctly addressed Jann's feedback I'll > respin a v2 with the various 'sins' in place for the time being. > > 2. I will also drop the 'since v6.14' stuff you rightly raised in this > respin. So far so good > 3. I will create a follow-up series to address these issues in this file > -in general-: > > - Drop '!' from every reference so we get automated cross-referencing - I > think now I understand the point (hopefully!) that Sphinx with > automagically link every unique reference to a function/struct/etc. to > one another. If you just drop the "!" you'll run into the "struct" problem you mentioned before. You'll need to take out "struct" as well if you go this route... > - Perhaps hack in a **struct ** prefix so we get the 'best of both worlds' > on this for types...? ...so yes you'd need to do that. > I think my misapprehension about defining functions was not realising that > by doing :c:func:etc without the ! would automatically provide that > definition upon first reference to that function/struct/etc.? > > Is that correct/sensible? > > Would you want me to only use the :c:func: stuff in the _first_ mention of > a function and then to not use it from then on? > > I wonder if the _appropriate_ use of :c:func:...: is in the actual > definition, but since it's not really practical to do that right now* is > simply doing it upon first mention a sensible 'least worst' approach here? Here, I think, we've gone a bit off track again. The goal of the automarkup code was to *never* need to use the :c:func: markup. Let's just say that ... certain members of our community ... found that markup entirely intolerable - and, in truth, it is ugly. So I wrote the initial automarkup extension; now, any time that the docs build sees function(), it looks for documentation for that function and creates a cross-reference if that documentation is found. The goal is that you should never need the :c:gunk: ever. Thanks, jon