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 A7C4F3B3BF1; Mon, 27 Apr 2026 09:55:24 +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=1777283725; cv=none; b=P7LIt2+IOMRaAne5UGORXEJoWAJadKricQJwh3YqJX36oY/Jj8JCncSMUyiosAyf2R3Jl6S5UyA3UCgJcfQIUQ+TH9xAgSP4UOthC56xsZuYtbvmODBQZTGyGOszPlYTFUx3gigIuZnpcd2BJ+WGqIDYAm0enjczDyXwEC3u8SM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777283725; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Gs3Vnh3wogGEbNVPT12d/5DdU9NgMe8QcrSMm2+1NSU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=GGwS5NoEU3DKrq/MFI1FnQyBx4rID0f73CqosfNEMq/DAWu+m7Q4w+k1QGh2FzMBOM5ZNSOsBNL3ooP3fjnlDuoUVNJCd4/Cl91nKWNPRphTwWag+4BTSJcer5gCBcaKzHs3sWBjlJKnyXdleBwr25n3QDzSh+sLAhR2MlKumMM= 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=W1Ozqvr4; 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="W1Ozqvr4" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 8012441098 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1777283724; bh=3H+HsivATr1jIWTDCLVY7dWcY19tKhMTVWTxEh1TFk4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=W1Ozqvr4HKBbuW43otfkbhzgme1bHA8fOGpHs6EL3DT24ihrpvOCxqI5fQMZZO8iG xi+8e0p6rb8gMH/kDIlOQbvPGeZIvKUY5mSFgz90Fx42X6E3pA50/By+waQL542XXZ zSyGHskh1o65bpQbokQVUQX7IdXhPEt606x/yrcGxyeRDE9t7a8D2xRTlzushhIWNC Rl6NocP0QAx+9hDeqWPmQAu1DWqo9xNFtjO1LYoPo5JyKvToUayincR483KKypG4ka hqSmmloQBV1QrD0u5AP9AI9b/T4apHsoSLK3TlWYRl4/PWTeiK/cMHdaTNeLyFypde g2P2PTJVaS2Mw== Received: from localhost (mdns.lwn.net [45.79.72.68]) (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 8012441098; Mon, 27 Apr 2026 09:55:23 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Randy Dunlap , Baolin Liu , skhan@linuxfoundation.org, cyphar@cyphar.com, vbabka@kernel.org, surenb@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Baolin Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 v2] Documentation: proc: fix section numbering in table of contents In-Reply-To: References: <20260424090654.19229-1-liubaolin12138@163.com> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2026 03:55:20 -0600 Message-ID: <87wlxspw1j.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 Randy Dunlap writes: > On 4/24/26 2:06 AM, Baolin Liu wrote: >> From: Baolin Liu >> >> Commit e24ccaaf7ec4 ("block: remove last remaining traces of IDE >> documentation") removed the IDE section but left its table of >> contents entry behind. >> Fix the stale entry and renumber the following sections. >> >> Fixes: e24ccaaf7ec4 ("block: remove last remaining traces of IDE documentation") >> Signed-off-by: Baolin Liu > > LGTM. > Acked-by: Randy Dunlap > > I note that the html-generated TOC is already correct; > e.g., https://docs.kernel.org/filesystems/proc.html#networking-info-in-proc-net > is already section 1.3. There are advantages to having a computer do a job like that :) I do really question the value of these manually maintained TOCs; they are always going to be out of date. But ... > AFAICT, this TOC is for users/readers who use an editor or pager > to read this file, but the patch is useful in that setting. Others seem to disagree, so we keep them. I've applied the patch, thanks. jon