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 E7B151DB366; Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:37:24 +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=1748961446; cv=none; b=Ub0fjCR4IsboowVIhNwhohodS4ARvKVnkJQ+IlztUPg5sx43Nu55hfysEzj16IbRqALP/lhenjjhVxznPLX5fZE9TzaSIGRK186kahPE1tP18iiZT1oSsup+cPS8kYeUoL6CT0bcWDx7zyhPW0FSgINpGPqv3fZls4MV9jOlVBs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748961446; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7F0XII4V5s2KPp1ioe9SOauygO51/G8Tc6KLSdROHo0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=PJLHHKVOb2yWN1W9hLlR56xeGkMR2DYG/XnQUbft5qtslbvLFg7hEZhzLifB0DglWjs7fOT0aVL3eqGPsTv309XqGa83E1db1azgWg/67oEP4OAYgRuD4XLFR6bJGkXgp4DhUjX7F0td8DyoWkWAAHXBC+egTCjyc6b4m2Yl3MY= 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=Fzyv0y/d; 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="Fzyv0y/d" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 3756041ED0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1748961444; bh=uw373KZqTxfYc7CgajAJm0hoPspIDINCwb6qNNb/b2c=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Fzyv0y/daizC+CqsktU1eYw3qfqwRekvSQTdxZWnPgVQ4dTTO45tBy2VxZug9voGr Vo2Oc2sPdIN9zD5H+wA1J8Zt7YjVSyTITU8TAXH4C7QrclLYAz33xAUuYXcSFvmxVb yHGKsmXe4Ce58i9tfK01pZaqc3xTntavvgxWpKnZJsjNFZl0VKGvD4f8PdE539GgZY RNGyEkQq4byV+byRM3wi4I/y9GJ4N3irjin11LWZduBaBEd5sft2tN/Cd/RAcuwp6U ULdlp9Q1VSJq7HVGoS1AHAtbYUIiq6RSv9mmTHnQ8nWtITi1Gf0bdX84WDdy2LclZQ 4NyKT8ktuA/SA== 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 3756041ED0; Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:37:24 +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: 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> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 08:37:23 -0600 Message-ID: <87tt4w7uxo.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: > But to repeat - 'given C's weirdness with typing I really prefer to be > explicit in referencing a struct vs. e.g. a typedef.' ...and I think that makes perfect sense. >> Why would you *not* want to cross-reference something and make life easier >> for your reader? > > Because it apparently requires me to document every function I reference? > Unless I'm missing something? > > I may be misunderstanding you. > > If not then fine, I can delay this patch, go off and do a 'cleanup' patch > first, that will drop the '!'s and come back to this. > > But if I need to document every referenced function that just isn't > feasible for me with my current workload. > > Please clarify! Hopefully I already have - I'm in no position to enforce such a requirement, even if I thought it would be a good thing -- and I don't. It's hard enough to get documentation written as it is, I certainly don't want to make it harder. My suggestion would be: proceed with your changes for now, it was never my purpose to put obstacles there. I'll look at having automarkup do something a bit more useful for references that lack documentation, then maybe I'll do a cleanup pass on some of the mm docs if nobody else gets there first. Thanks, jon