[PATCH net v2 11/14] docs: netdev: add missing back ticks
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Date: 2022-03-29 05:09:06
Also in:
bpf, linux-doc
Subsystem:
documentation, networking [general], the rest · Maintainers:
Jonathan Corbet, "David S. Miller", Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, Linus Torvalds
I think double back ticks are more correct. Add where they are missing. Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> --- 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 1388f78cfbc5..294ad9b0162d 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