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 B7FDC19F416; Mon, 14 Apr 2025 17:48:53 +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=1744652935; cv=none; b=fbz9KPzTsGiwcdpzuXidPt48GnJv4gNboP7/IwGCfBqKMId1XblUklrMc38/wfSE/+S5HxyHlU17Bl+9WdgsntyQ0ScSIMvZw5FS9t605FTdf2ojJHH3llhNNJcYMH26wCSYHpUwa/yo2fCO43sarYbjmwyoypKWEzR3JORfysM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744652935; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gfCPepPv1n0+P8DflWgted8Y49ZuVnKnzDVOsoE3ZXU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=gnT4W669vhRuhRZlcKeIYTukLxFPAFLUQyHP3t3ycFcB3RigjIdli4CzUSa1WgEs5JWR8O6PAYVN2MwyGu695v6lcuNoXkgViUemQTJ5VKHoRFi9ZkS9pG6aht6LmiCZ8D6epF+YSQR3x66oGjjdtVbWveTfTgbaP4sdHaSIrBk= 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=n/u42MxQ; 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="n/u42MxQ" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net B887B41E46 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1744652932; bh=pvnGwN5iYkeWp7KCnx9Dc3ojnv5bEwcQT3E4GnBFnjo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=n/u42MxQ8Xv7IPRczJ8nWCpiiWItbAPaYl+3H8lczCs1yhYXh90Zb5rN33y5FqfuB VhhfUodvMfUzuoO3G+NmhGB62ZW7dlQkd7ozCAojn3EOyZ6NJfiqz7ujQDYH13OaVy oa9UdswKZfKgil9yijr0/f7SQPJvOgd3EOgrvHEsCHF9kPC07zkdU4VTSm/jeKLxSj ULKXogtB0B4GFzfauE23w7fTUxsYmf/DBDcIDsAbBUFZOj31SKm0+eIh/2Wtknt8Mo Dnx9SYFnB0jdiDuurdQoOq6giFDpVCTjJqiFL84NLPNLkUQFlITpRpFAxPZVApab1J Em0CHB1Bh1jgQ== 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 B887B41E46; Mon, 14 Apr 2025 17:48:52 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Xin Li , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] Documentation: kvm: Fix a section number In-Reply-To: <747d9d7d-c500-46f0-b0f8-a157dc7524ad@zytor.com> References: <20250414165146.2279450-1-xin@zytor.com> <87sema8yhy.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <747d9d7d-c500-46f0-b0f8-a157dc7524ad@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 11:48:51 -0600 Message-ID: <87o6wy8who.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 Xin Li writes: > On 4/14/2025 10:05 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >>> -7.37 KVM_CAP_ARM_WRITABLE_IMP_ID_REGS >>> +7.42 KVM_CAP_ARM_WRITABLE_IMP_ID_REGS >>> ------------------------------------- >> The fix seems fine but ... I have to ask ... do the section numbers buy >> anything here? We have a documentation system that can do nice >> cross-references when needed, so I'm not sure that these numbers add >> anything other than a bit of manual maintenance hassle. > > So you prefer to get rid of the section numbering? > > Looks it makes it simpler to maintain the documentation. But that would > anyway be another serial patches, right? *I* would prefer it, but that call is really up to the KVM folks, not me. Their preference far outweighs mine on this ... I'm just venting :) Thanks, jon