Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc:     linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Docs: An initial automarkup extension for sphinx
In-Reply-To: <20190426105209.1e414eae@lwn.net>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
References: <20190425200125.12302-1-corbet@lwn.net> <20190425200125.12302-2-corbet@lwn.net> <87tvelrv8d.fsf@intel.com> <20190426105209.1e414eae@lwn.net>
Date:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 21:58:58 +0300
Message-ID: <87zhoch9u5.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
> I am not at all opposed to a more proper solution that might, in the
> long term, produce more deterministic results.  I can even try to work in
> that direction.  But this is something that can be done now that, IMO,
> doesn't in any way close off a better implementation in the future.  If we
> agree that we should automatically generate references for occurrences of
> "function()", we can change how that is actually done later.
>
> I'll look into this further, but my inclination is to go forward with what
> I have now.  It's simple and easy to understand, and doesn't seem to screw
> up anywhere in the current body of kernel docs as far as I can tell.

Fair enough. It's most important that this doesn't block us from
switching to a different implementation later once someone figures it
out.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center