Re: [PATCH] Documentation/vm/page_owner.rst: Fix syntax error and Describe details using table

[Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>]

Shenghong Han <hanshenghong2019@email.szu.edu.cn> writes:

> Some syntax errors exist in "page_owner.rst". Thanks to Akira Yokosawa and
> Haowen Bai for tips to help improve the documentation.
>
> We try to fix them. Hope that the Documentation is showed as we expect.

You *have* built the docs and know that they render as expected, right? 

> Signed-off-by: Shenghong Han <hanshenghong2019@email.szu.edu.cn>
> Fixes: edc93abbcc6d ("tools/vm/page_owner_sort.c: support sorting blocks by multiple keys")
>
> Co-developed-by: Yixuan Cao <caoyixuan2019@email.szu.edu.cn>
> Co-developed-by: Yinan Zhang <zhangyinan2019@email.szu.edu.cn>
> Co-developed-by: Chongxi Zhao <zhaochongxi2019@email.szu.edu.cn>
> Co-developed-by: Jiajian Ye <yejiajian2018@email.szu.edu.cn>
> Co-developed-by: Yuhong Feng <yuhongf@szu.edu.cn>

As I mentioned the last time I saw a version of this work, if it really
took this many people to develop this one patch, then we need signoff
lines from all of them.

> ---
> Hello Andrew,
>
> In Commit 57f2b54a9379 ("Documentation/vm/page_owner.rst: update the
> documentation") and Commit edc93abbcc6d ("tools/vm/page_owner_sort.c:
> support sorting blocks by multiple keys"), some incorrect syntax
> are used, which laeds to "build warning after merge of the mm tree".
> Apologize for that!
>
> This issue is trying to fix it.
>
> Best,
>
> 	Shenghong Han
> ---
> ---
>  Documentation/vm/page_owner.rst | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/vm/page_owner.rst b/Documentation/vm/page_owner.rst
> index 25622c715..f900ab99d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/vm/page_owner.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/vm/page_owner.rst
> @@ -171,26 +171,47 @@ Usage
>  
>  STANDARD FORMAT SPECIFIERS
>  ==========================
> -::
> -
> -For --sort option:
> -

So the simplest fix, of course, would be to just put some leading white
space before the "For" lines.  Then the literal block would be
syntactically correct.

> -	KEY		LONG		DESCRIPTION
> -	p		pid		process ID
> -	tg		tgid		thread group ID
> -	n		name		task command name
> -	st		stacktrace	stack trace of the page allocation
> -	T		txt		full text of block
> -	ft		free_ts		timestamp of the page when it was released
> -	at		alloc_ts	timestamp of the page when it was allocated
> -        ator            allocator       memory allocator for pages
> -
> -For --curl option:
> -
> -	KEY		LONG		DESCRIPTION
> -	p		pid		process ID
> -	tg		tgid		thread group ID
> -	n		name		task command name
> -	f		free		whether the page has been released or not
> -	st		stacktrace	stack trace of the page allocation
> -        ator            allocator       memory allocator for pages
> +
> +1) `Table 1`_ for the ``--sort`` option.
> +
> +.. table:: Table 1
> +   :name: Table 1

This seems like rather more markup than is really needed?  What is the
point of these tags?

> +   +--------+--------------+----------------------------------------------+
> +   | KEY    | LONG         | DESCRIPTION                                  |
> +   +========+==============+==============================================+
> +   | p      | pid          | process ID                                   |
> +   +--------+--------------+----------------------------------------------+

...and this seems over the top.  I saw a version of this that used the
simpler format:

> +	====		==========	===========
> 	KEY		LONG		DESCRIPTION
> +	====		==========	===========
> 	p		pid		process ID

That's just as easy to read and much easier to maintain, is there a
reason you moved away from it?

Thanks,

jon