From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D030C433F5 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 20:03:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1356113D for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 20:03:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1352215AbhIHUEa (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Sep 2021 16:04:30 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51742 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1352015AbhIHUEX (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Sep 2021 16:04:23 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:3a1::42]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C09EC061575 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:281:8300:104d::5f6]) (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 96F4A616F; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 20:03:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 96F4A616F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1631131393; bh=a8A2I+1GkFx6cU+qlecxv8mtep2TmyrFfafdL9KAMcM=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=blQ1U5XYeKgUK+mOZWYgYMl6X7/uq/dLO2UxnY2/qcaiFQUAakP0lq5m3jH1JdIKZ puSc3+vkNpna2sr49H7fl9qS485ScnobKZdSLRweCNuFUuVCkSiYLv2jPs8Q588U// gRsjoj2dYIvAhvtM7mB+Ud+21glCJB8ZPYoQtSrkMzitFXV3jj9SH3ZNK5tU2spZZU fdEnv+4QkB4Y+yBb/3lSX0K2W2aTLb7ag1CyQzC714Jx10W6uHbY+UdCspcbR8C2uq pO412CEmLI+vi7IFjLJIJfYcNIPom/MIUvmLEfqkRp5ybeQrZpEeCPBeVXhgFVGT7e ymm91KwJOHiRg== From: Jonathan Corbet To: Li Xinhai , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Doc: page_migration: fix numbering for non-LRU movable flags In-Reply-To: <20210908145215.592325-1-lixinhai.lxh@gmail.com> References: <20210908145215.592325-1-lixinhai.lxh@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 14:03:12 -0600 Message-ID: <87mtomq1hb.fsf@meer.lwn.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Li Xinhai writes: > The non-LRU movable flags part is not relevant to above 3 funcitons, so remove > the number 4. > > Signed-off-by: Li Xinhai > > --- > Documentation/vm/page_migration.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/vm/page_migration.rst b/Documentation/vm/page_migration.rst > index db9d7e5539cb..08810f549f70 100644 > --- a/Documentation/vm/page_migration.rst > +++ b/Documentation/vm/page_migration.rst > @@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ which are function pointers of struct address_space_operations. > In this function, the driver should put the isolated page back into its own data > structure. > > -4. non-LRU movable page flags > +Non-LRU movable page flags So should this be a section heading instead? Thanks, jon