Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 18 Jan 2021 08:33:06 -0700
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
Cc:     bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] docs: bpf: Fixup atomics documentation
Message-ID: <20210118083306.4c16153d@lwn.net>
In-Reply-To: <20210118113643.232579-1-jackmanb@google.com>
References: <20210118113643.232579-1-jackmanb@google.com>
Organization: LWN.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:36:43 +0000
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> wrote:

> This fixues up the markup to fix a warning, be more consistent with
> use of monospace, and use the correct .rst syntax for <em> (* instead
> of _). It also clarifies the explanation of Clang's -mcpu
> requirements for this feature, Alexei pointed out that use of the
> word "version" was confusing here.

This starts to sound like material for more than one patch...?

> NB this conflicts with Lukas' patch at [1], here where I've added
> `::` to fix the warning, I also kept the original ':' which appears
> in the output text.

And why did you do that?  

> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CA+i-1C3cEXqxcXfD4sibQfx+dtmmzvOzruhk8J5pAw3g5v=KgA@mail.gmail.com/T/#t
> 
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/networking/filter.rst | 30 +++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/networking/filter.rst b/Documentation/networking/filter.rst
> index f6d8f90e9a56..ba03e90a9163 100644
> --- a/Documentation/networking/filter.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/networking/filter.rst
> @@ -1048,12 +1048,12 @@ Unlike classic BPF instruction set, eBPF has generic load/store operations::
>  Where size is one of: BPF_B or BPF_H or BPF_W or BPF_DW.
>  
>  It also includes atomic operations, which use the immediate field for extra
> -encoding.
> +encoding: ::

Things like this read really strangely.  Just say "encoding::" and be done
with it, please.

Thanks,

jon