Re: [PATCH mmotm] tmpfs: support 64-bit inums per-sb fix

[Hugh Dickins]

On Sat, 1 Aug 2020, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 8/1/20 7:37 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Expanded Chris's Documentation and Kconfig help on tmpfs inode64.
> > TMPFS_INODE64 still there, still default N, but writing down its very
> > limited limitation does make me wonder again if we want the option.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Andrew, please fold into tmpfs-support-64-bit-inums-per-sb.patch later.
> > 
> > Randy, you're very active on Documentation and linux-next: may I ask you
> > please to try applying this patch to latest, and see if tmpfs.rst comes
> > out looking right to you?  I'm an old dog still stuck in the days of
> 
> Hi Hugh,
> It looks fine.

Thank you so much, Randy.

> 
> > tmpfs.txt, hoping to avoid new tricks for a while.  Thanks!  (Bonus
> > points if you can explain what the "::" on line 122 is about. I started
> > out reading Documentation/doc-guide/sphinx.rst, but... got diverted.
> > Perhaps I should ask Mauro or Jon, but turning for help first to you.)
> 
> That's the correct file. Around line 216, it says:
> 
> * For inserting fixed width text blocks (for code examples, use case
>   examples, etc.), use ``::`` for anything that doesn't really benefit
>   from syntax highlighting, especially short snippets. Use
>   ``.. code-block:: <language>`` for longer code blocks that benefit
>   from highlighting. For a short snippet of code embedded in the text, use \`\`.
> 
> 
> so it's just for a (short) code example block, fixed font...

Bonus points awarded, thanks...ish. I'll have to look around for more
examples of where that's done, and I think it'll only make real sense
to me, when I'm further along, producing the proper output, then seeing
how bad something looks without the "::".

Thanks again,
Hugh