Re: [PATCH v2] XArray: minor documentation improvements

[Jonathan Corbet]

Tamir Duberstein <tamird@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> - Replace "they" with "you" where "you" is used in the preceding
>   sentence fragment.
> - Use "erasing" rather than "storing `NULL`" when describing multi-index
>   entries. Split this into a separate sentence.
> - Add "call" parentheses on "xa_store" for consistency and
>   linkification.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> V1 -> V2: s/use/you/ (Darrick J. Wong)
>
>  Documentation/core-api/xarray.rst | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

So sorry to pick nits, but it's that kind of patch...:)

> diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/xarray.rst b/Documentation/core-api/xarray.rst
> index 77e0ece2b1d6..75c83b37e88f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/core-api/xarray.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/core-api/xarray.rst
> @@ -42,8 +42,8 @@ call xa_tag_pointer() to create an entry with a tag, xa_untag_pointer()
>  to turn a tagged entry back into an untagged pointer and xa_pointer_tag()
>  to retrieve the tag of an entry.  Tagged pointers use the same bits that
>  are used to distinguish value entries from normal pointers, so you must
> -decide whether they want to store value entries or tagged pointers in
> -any particular XArray.
> +decide whether you want to store value entries or tagged pointers in any
> +particular XArray.
>  
>  The XArray does not support storing IS_ERR() pointers as some
>  conflict with value entries or internal entries.
> @@ -52,8 +52,8 @@ An unusual feature of the XArray is the ability to create entries which
>  occupy a range of indices.  Once stored to, looking up any index in
>  the range will return the same entry as looking up any other index in
>  the range.  Storing to any index will store to all of them.  Multi-index
> -entries can be explicitly split into smaller entries, or storing ``NULL``
> -into any entry will cause the XArray to forget about the range.
> +entries can be explicitly split into smaller entries. Erasing any entry
> +will cause the XArray to forget about the range.

I'm not convinced that this is better.  This is programmer
documentation, and "storing NULL" says exactly what is going on.
"Erasing" is, IMO, less clear.

Whatever; if Willy's happy I'll certainly apply this.

Thanks,

jon