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=-20.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable 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 DE49CC433B4 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 09:16:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4D7C61460 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 09:16:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235597AbhDVJQd (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 05:16:33 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:20512 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235598AbhDVJQb (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 05:16:31 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1619082956; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ZpZ4/lZdrqpUFu+LeCWRgSEcQffomnP0+mjACx6gy8c=; b=A72lalvqTo0i1rfKgUi+Z7inRVuNse7Glc3M7AcX/SiD6fr8075LHJRp+t/rQ2otQS9z1k 82xtYHyfwKoB7VbgDMrlZLRNzu+xLOI8PFolEzfxZta2ndyz7x+jgaMdcC+szBvL10smvz a+tx7ympxsswd/h+VbW6czG8Qj6UyFw= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-277-GUXQldHaP8ag-HXEf6Mkrg-1; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 05:15:52 -0400 X-MC-Unique: GUXQldHaP8ag-HXEf6Mkrg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2270F107ACCD; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 09:15:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from carbon (unknown [10.36.110.19]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A000919726; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 09:15:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:15:40 +0200 From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer To: Tiezhu Yang Cc: Jonathan Corbet , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , John Fastabend , KP Singh , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Xuefeng Li , brouer@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3] bpf: Fix some invalid links in bpf_devel_QA.rst Message-ID: <20210422111540.7e37c004@carbon> In-Reply-To: <1619062560-30483-1-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> References: <1619062560-30483-1-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:36:00 +0800 Tiezhu Yang 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]. The links work if you are browsing the document via GitHub: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst But I'm fine with removing those links as the official doc is here: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.html > As Alexei Starovoitov suggested, just remove "MAINTAINERS" and > "samples/bpf/" links and use correct link of "selftests". > > [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 > --- > > v3: Remove "MAINTAINERS" and "samples/bpf/" links and > use correct link of "selftests" > > v2: Add Fixes: tag > > Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst | 17 ++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst > index 2ed89ab..d05e67e 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 ``MAINTAINERS`` file): > > * Alexei Starovoitov > * Daniel Borkmann > @@ -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 > +``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 > @@ -645,10 +645,9 @@ 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/ > +.. _selftests: > + https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/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 -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer