Received: by 2002:a25:f815:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id u21csp3688104ybd; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 06:53:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyomqSYePUrmqFyqeWnOYEj+a727vLOT1dvYZZArVadJT47Zt9kv1OUV/rQbnne2QgcrptQ X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:a505:: with SMTP id a5mr32557258pjq.27.1561470810694; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 06:53:30 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1561470810; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=oMtH0BwhFp/WfhqxQUIjrzJOTrqr5GLJx9lGX4poG5vT2JnU8UPGYQ7oeXQERPw5l4 psgjDnN2hKxD8fcx9hUW7yDOjEQJbN6EqgCNKFvpsUSvJ+SK5QehnvycylsYuYwtwTSv MB99zv5bCO8JijvldQ+oASdzwIE/20K+CVBKzXnw+wh1LkOO577RREyDaFw2e5yvnAUO 49Y/cZ5rHPunFsa4WOxQgk4Ki7v9ZFq2vqja3dx8F4apAryhGgE0BYy5urD0koO6wtmf 9BKsJS0+pA1X7fz6G16EhLBTZXzXsmtslC/R9S9lMu0GEDnIp7nDorIf42/FNN75Sash NRzA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :organization:references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from :date; bh=rpz5zthtdMVgr4zbCtwOZ03qIS+BNphbna/3MjMb5zM=; b=XSd5G9xZGLpuLCeHA41YdpdwGJNXRGVuFqqa+Ss86wtnWYQVyqcm5rHj3RtjHv1Ry8 d8xuwOkKWJIKwryqSHqm7l8PypQgaUvGiLPLWIclF6dnQUu9HtI0aRBnfomo9Bh2YVUW AP9JrPAJM3mU9DUhPCCNUF6ptquKrWCuWxn7rb4LdmkaMufi1LbOolP8SW1Rw6CP/luq NMEIwFU4PtdW0GICW3z3Tm9tyixTLy+ttrfe0umSo8jpKra0ZJyvnYAW7VW2HWeMc0kd 23vBk3u42NhuB8NCmkuaKYJjdg/3ymiad47fwLj0NbwqBAT91uUH5Kie1KPAqUG/hJ6a TRLg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id e21si12927078pgv.310.2019.06.25.06.53.15; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 06:53:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726486AbfFYNww (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:52:52 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]:60692 "EHLO ms.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726550AbfFYNww (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:52:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC37130A; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:52:50 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Gary R Hook Cc: Joe Perches , "Hook, Gary" , "herbert@gondor.apana.org.au" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Clean up crypto documentation Message-ID: <20190625075250.3a912863@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: References: <156140322426.29777.8610751479936722967.stgit@taos> <23a5979082c89d7028409ad9ae082840411e1ca6.camel@perches.com> <977bc7c484ef55ff78de51d7555afcc3c3350b1e.camel@perches.com> <20190624143748.7fcfe623@lwn.net> Organization: LWN.net X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:33:27 +0000 Gary R Hook wrote: > > It's been "valid" since I wrote it...it's just not upstream yet :) I > > expect it to be in 5.3, though. So the best way to refer to a kernel > > function, going forward, is just function() with no markup needed. > > So I'm unclear: > > 1) would you prefer I wait on your 5.3 change being fully committed, > 2) add your change to my local tree and use it, then submit an update > patchset that depends upon it, or > 3) re-submit now (using the current method) with suggested changes? I would just not mark up function() at all, and the right thing will happen to it in the very near future. Thanks, jon