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;
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     Fox Chen <foxhlchen@gmail.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>, vegard.nossum@oracle.com,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, rdunlap@infradead.org,
        grandmaster@al2klimov.de, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] docs: path-lookup: update follow_managed() part
In-Reply-To: <CAC2o3DLJpMJDzQByJixPyLe47ajXXVFPRQBh3MaYPargrqS4tg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20210316054727.25655-1-foxhlchen@gmail.com>
 <20210316054727.25655-2-foxhlchen@gmail.com>
 <20210419021730.GV2531743@casper.infradead.org>
 <CAC2o3D+kq+U9vSp_9DNM3UGA=UGhS84Y+mwm=9S6eMPpf2-ogQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210419032513.GW2531743@casper.infradead.org>
 <CAC2o3DLJpMJDzQByJixPyLe47ajXXVFPRQBh3MaYPargrqS4tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:22:31 -0600
Message-ID: <87fszmaxl4.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Fox Chen <foxhlchen@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:25 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:33:00AM +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:17 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>> > > You can drop ``..`` from around function named which are followed with
>> > > ().  d74b0d31ddde ("Docs: An initial automarkup extension for sphinx")
>> > > marks them up automatically.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Got it, thanks for letting me know. But I will still use them in this
>> > patch series to keep consistency with the remaining parts of the
>> > document.
>>
>> Well, you weren't.  For example:
>>
>> +As the last step of ``walk_component()``, ``step_into()`` will be called either
>> +directly from walk_component() or from handle_dots().  It calls
>> +``handle_mount()``, to check and handle mount points, in which a new
>>
>> Neither of the functions on the second line were using ``.
>
> Oh, That was a mistake,  They should've been wrapped with ``.
> Thanks for pointing it out. I will go through the whole patch set and
> fix this type of inconsistency in V3.

Please, if possible, go toward the bare function() form rather than
using literals...it's easier to read and the docs system will
automatically create cross references for you.

Thanks,

jon