[PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf: Fix some invalid links in bpf_devel_QA.rst

[PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf: Fix some invalid links in bpf_devel_QA.rst

[Tiezhu Yang]

There exist some errors "404 Not Found" when I click the link
of "MAINTAINERS" [1], "samples/bpf/" [2] and "selftests" [3]
in the documentation "HOWTO interact with BPF subsystem" [4].

Use correct link of "MAINTAINERS" and just remove the links of
"samples/bpf/" and "selftests" because there are no related
documentations.

[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/MAINTAINERS
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/samples/bpf/
[3] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/
[4] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.html

Fixes: 542228384888 ("bpf, doc: convert bpf_devel_QA.rst to use RST formatting")
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
---

v2: Add Fixes: tag

 Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst | 23 ++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst
index 2ed89ab..4fd4c8c 100644
--- a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ list:
 This may also include issues related to XDP, BPF tracing, etc.
 
 Given netdev has a high volume of traffic, please also add the BPF
-maintainers to Cc (from kernel MAINTAINERS_ file):
+maintainers to Cc (from kernel :ref:`MAINTAINERS <maintainers>` file):
 
 * Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
 * Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
@@ -217,11 +217,11 @@ page run by David S. Miller on net-next that provides guidance:
 Q: Verifier changes and test cases
 ----------------------------------
 Q: I made a BPF verifier change, do I need to add test cases for
-BPF kernel selftests_?
+BPF kernel selftests?
 
 A: If the patch has changes to the behavior of the verifier, then yes,
 it is absolutely necessary to add test cases to the BPF kernel
-selftests_ suite. If they are not present and we think they are
+selftests suite. If they are not present and we think they are
 needed, then we might ask for them before accepting any changes.
 
 In particular, test_verifier.c is tracking a high number of BPF test
@@ -234,11 +234,11 @@ be subject to change.
 
 Q: samples/bpf preference vs selftests?
 ---------------------------------------
-Q: When should I add code to `samples/bpf/`_ and when to BPF kernel
-selftests_ ?
+Q: When should I add code to ``samples/bpf/`` and when to BPF kernel
+selftests?
 
-A: In general, we prefer additions to BPF kernel selftests_ rather than
-`samples/bpf/`_. The rationale is very simple: kernel selftests are
+A: In general, we prefer additions to BPF kernel selftests rather than
+``samples/bpf/``. The rationale is very simple: kernel selftests are
 regularly run by various bots to test for kernel regressions.
 
 The more test cases we add to BPF selftests, the better the coverage
@@ -246,9 +246,9 @@ and the less likely it is that those could accidentally break. It is
 not that BPF kernel selftests cannot demo how a specific feature can
 be used.
 
-That said, `samples/bpf/`_ may be a good place for people to get started,
+That said, ``samples/bpf/`` may be a good place for people to get started,
 so it might be advisable that simple demos of features could go into
-`samples/bpf/`_, but advanced functional and corner-case testing rather
+``samples/bpf/``, but advanced functional and corner-case testing rather
 into kernel selftests.
 
 If your sample looks like a test case, then go for BPF kernel selftests
@@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ Testing patches
 Q: How to run BPF selftests
 ---------------------------
 A: After you have booted into the newly compiled kernel, navigate to
-the BPF selftests_ suite in order to test BPF functionality (current
+the BPF selftests suite in order to test BPF functionality (current
 working directory points to the root of the cloned git tree)::
 
   $ cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf/
@@ -645,10 +645,7 @@ when:
 
 .. Links
 .. _Documentation/process/: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/
-.. _MAINTAINERS: ../../MAINTAINERS
 .. _netdev-FAQ: ../networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
-.. _samples/bpf/: ../../samples/bpf/
-.. _selftests: ../../tools/testing/selftests/bpf/
 .. _Documentation/dev-tools/kselftest.rst:
    https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kselftest.html
 .. _Documentation/bpf/btf.rst: btf.rst
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf: Fix some invalid links in bpf_devel_QA.rst

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:20 AM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> wrote:
>
> There exist some errors "404 Not Found" when I click the link
> of "MAINTAINERS" [1], "samples/bpf/" [2] and "selftests" [3]
> in the documentation "HOWTO interact with BPF subsystem" [4].
>
> Use correct link of "MAINTAINERS" and just remove the links of
> "samples/bpf/" and "selftests" because there are no related
> documentations.
...
>  .. Links
>  .. _Documentation/process/: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/
> -.. _MAINTAINERS: ../../MAINTAINERS
>  .. _netdev-FAQ: ../networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
> -.. _samples/bpf/: ../../samples/bpf/
> -.. _selftests: ../../tools/testing/selftests/bpf/

I'm fine with removing maintainers and samples links, but selftests
would be good to keep.
There is no documentation inside selftests, but clicking to go to
source code feels useful.
Instead of removing could you make it clickable?