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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D700C4167B for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 02:54:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233343AbiC0C4B (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Mar 2022 22:56:01 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52828 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233104AbiC0Czy (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Mar 2022 22:55:54 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2B1C1FA73; Sat, 26 Mar 2022 19:54:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94D8A60EF3; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 02:54:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ACB9CC340F3; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 02:54:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1648349653; bh=NLgPXTBZS78z7a2vcY6QvyuEnPwLPlpxj14HiKitglk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=NExbVIEQn5ILv/KSSc2VhA9VsNjo/K6eJSXYAEXnCvL0NZywLfwcgGUOyLLMeES4S Ll74bNRTkWc+KIPqiavfrmZi7F2WfGAZ7kam1wT9QnWS8/zso6OaFLJkxagBx2/Y28 0YlI9arKdRIK28uaFkhw4mld+VaFg4Oc/qe9bZ2+ETNUH43PtwXy2l1bmFSOfGSnf5 sKo6EgCMb69xX9+KdXR0N54owswE8eidbIbH6L/c58wnUblC343I0gD5rHJkU0Gtw5 rFbbNPLHv87qf9cDHXalzbgVNspncWztRdfoRlepy8rYcxn5FQSNEG1qgHOT8CT6SE ahscFL44HSCeQ== From: Jakub Kicinski To: davem@davemloft.net Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, andrew@lunn.ch, f.fainelli@gmail.com, Jakub Kicinski Subject: [PATCH net 10/13] docs: netdev: add missing back ticks Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2022 19:53:57 -0700 Message-Id: <20220327025400.2481365-11-kuba@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.34.1 In-Reply-To: <20220327025400.2481365-1-kuba@kernel.org> References: <20220327025400.2481365-1-kuba@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org I think double back ticks are more correct. Add where they are missing. Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski --- Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst index 26110201f301..17c0f8a73a4b 100644 --- a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst +++ b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ or the user space project is not reviewed on netdev include a link to a public repo where user space patches can be seen. In case user space tooling lives in a separate repository but is -reviewed on netdev (e.g. patches to `iproute2` tools) kernel and +reviewed on netdev (e.g. patches to ``iproute2`` tools) kernel and user space patches should form separate series (threads) when posted to the mailing list, e.g.:: @@ -251,18 +251,18 @@ traffic if we can help it. netdevsim is great, can I extend it for my out-of-tree tests? ------------------------------------------------------------- -No, `netdevsim` is a test vehicle solely for upstream tests. -(Please add your tests under tools/testing/selftests/.) +No, ``netdevsim`` is a test vehicle solely for upstream tests. +(Please add your tests under ``tools/testing/selftests/``.) -We also give no guarantees that `netdevsim` won't change in the future +We also give no guarantees that ``netdevsim`` won't change in the future in a way which would break what would normally be considered uAPI. Is netdevsim considered a "user" of an API? ------------------------------------------- Linux kernel has a long standing rule that no API should be added unless -it has a real, in-tree user. Mock-ups and tests based on `netdevsim` are -strongly encouraged when adding new APIs, but `netdevsim` in itself +it has a real, in-tree user. Mock-ups and tests based on ``netdevsim`` are +strongly encouraged when adding new APIs, but ``netdevsim`` in itself is **not** considered a use case/user. Any other tips to help ensure my net/net-next patch gets OK'd? -- 2.34.1