From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eidolon.nox.tf (eidolon.nox.tf [185.142.180.128]) (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 785AA2DB7B4; Tue, 14 Jul 2026 17:16:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.142.180.128 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784049419; cv=none; b=g7eKUGl0Z1jLYQQjmomNfbDTa7IN3pUR9kGetCaoqumk0kMs7KFNBWxBQVx4Kx80a5GUVqZBHkuDKPdKaMrFbJ7S/QgY4xKH8gc1wAnea0Eo/ksQPUeY/aNqJtsqgLbRR7N0Efbtx4bWAkWvprPpVRrUIDHvdXgIoqfbyTjG35k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784049419; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nD1exLgIyt/KhruyXitdG6BV49FmMZzAASR26oxBMxE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BWNP4/ri5oMEZA+D6ZhxxCkIaEUSG/WBSgZk/MqK3xRo+MjHsmkduzHdiI43AMpeLLkHqv9Sarety3o14WVJazYqI0Uh7eJHQLSsO15VV2QLAO7PHaJBLw0qETWlLfQd5ToSnlvxEjiyyPup0JJChLgy6fAkCJR0uBnMrgqI3S8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=diac24.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=diac24.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.142.180.128 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=diac24.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=diac24.net Received: from equinox by eidolon.nox.tf with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wjgkW-00000002EWD-0H9d; Tue, 14 Jul 2026 19:16:52 +0200 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2026 19:16:52 +0200 From: David 'equinox' Lamparter To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 9/9] net: document RFC6724 rule 5.5 implementation Message-ID: References: <20260714094030.136317-1-equinox@diac24.net> <20260714094030.136317-10-equinox@diac24.net> <87zeztg1ye.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87zeztg1ye.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 07:01:13AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > David 'equinox' Lamparter writes: > > create mode 100644 Documentation/networking/ipv6-addrsel.rst > > You need to add this new document to the index.rst file or it won't be > part of the docs build...you should have seen a warning when you built > the docs. Indeed... I missed it between the other warnings. Downside of doing clean runs without a sphinx cache, sigh. > > +==================================== > > +IPv6 source address selection trivia > > +==================================== > > + > > + > > +RFC6724 rule 5.5 support > > +------------------------ > > Please stick with the section markup guidelines in > Documentation/doc-guide/sphinx.rst. Oh, you mean I shouldn't skip the "Chapter" level? Now that you mention it, maybe I should include the file from ipv6.rst, and remove the document title entirely - it looks quite weird in the TOC with the direct reference from index.rst. (Or rather, I've made weird choices with the headings.) Does that sound good to you? (Or, I could just put the entire text into ipv6.rst...) > > +RFC6724 rule 5.5 is a very short paragraph in a complex RFC that has turned > > +out quite tricky, but also immensely useful in multihoming scenarios. For > > +reference, it says: > > + > > +:: > > You'll likely get more visually pleasing results if you just leave out > the "::" here; you don't need literal formatting. I did that because RFCs are historically shipped & cited monospaced, and that's direct from the RFC. My tendency is to keep it this way for "established convention" reasons, but I don't care that much - does anyone have stronger feelings? > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > > index f3218abefd0c..4edf48362a07 100644 > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > @@ -18912,6 +18912,7 @@ F: Documentation/netlink/specs/rt-addr.yaml > > F: Documentation/netlink/specs/rt-neigh.yaml > > F: Documentation/netlink/specs/rt-route.yaml > > F: Documentation/netlink/specs/rt-rule.yaml > > +F: Documentation/networking/ipv6-addrsel.rst > > It seems weird to add this one file here - I wonder why there isn't just > an entry for Documentation/networking ? There is, the difference is "NETWORKING [GENERAL]" vs "NETWORKING [IPv4/IPv6]". I wasn't sure how much this matters & decided to err on the side of caution (and also because checkpatch complained.) I'll go drop the line. Thanks, -equi