Re: [PATCH 0/3] Clean up crypto documentation
From: Joe Perches
Date: Mon Jun 24 2019 - 18:37:49 EST
On Mon, 2019-06-24 at 14:37 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:29:42 -0700
> Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Finally, would you prefer a v2 of the patch set? Happy to do
> > > whatever is preferred, of course.
> > Whatever Jonathan decides is fine with me.
> > Mine was just a plea to avoid unnecessarily
> > making the source text harder to read as
> > that's what I mostly use.
> Usually Herbert seems to take crypto docs, so it's not necessarily up to
> me :)
> I don't see much that's objectionable here. But...
> > I don't know if this extension is valid yet, but
> > I believe just using <function_name>() is more
> > readable as text than ``<function_name>`` or
> > :c:func:`<function_name>`
> It's been "valid" since I wrote it...it's just not upstream yet :) I
> expect it to be in 5.3, though. So the best way to refer to a kernel
> function, going forward, is just function() with no markup needed.
When that's actually "valid" I suggest doing:
$ git ls-files -- 'Documentation/*.rst' | \
xargs perl -pi -e 's/:c:func:`(\w+)(?:\(\))?`/\1()/g; s/``(\w+)\(\)``/\1()/g'
so function designations in Documentation are simpler to read.
Right now that's:
$ git diff --shortstat Documentation/
125 files changed, 1680 insertions(+), 1680 deletions(-)