Re: [RFC] rcu: doc: update example about stale data

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 09:44:31PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Joel Fernandes (Google)
> <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The RCU example for 'rejecting stale data' on system-call auditting
> > stops iterating through the rules if a deleted one is found. It makes
> > more sense to continue looking at other rules once a deleted one is
> > rejected. Although the original example is fine, this makes it more
> > meaningful.
> 
> Sorry, I messed up the patch title, it is supposed to be 'doc: rcu:
> ...'. I can resend it if you want.

Hmmm...  There doesn't seem to be any consistent standard for documentation
patches.  I see "Documentation: networking:", "docs:", "doc:" (which is
what I normally use), "doc:doc-guide:", "Documentation/process:",
"doc/devicetree:", "media: doc:", and who knows what all else.

Including "Documentation" seems excessive.  I guess I am OK with
"doc: rcu:", but either just plain "doc:" or "doc/rcu:" would be fine
with me as well.

							Thanx, Paul