Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Dec 2015 16:38:42 -0800 | From | Josh Triplett <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/8] documentation: Record RCU requirements |
| |
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 04:33:32PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 04:07:19PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 03:50:19PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > This commit adds RCU requirements as published in a 2015 LWN series. > > > Bringing these requirements in-tree allows them to be updated as changes > > > are discovered. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > --- > > > .../RCU/Design/Requirements/2013-08-is-it-dead.png | Bin 0 -> 100825 bytes > > > .../Design/Requirements/GPpartitionReaders1.svg | 374 +++ > > > .../RCU/Design/Requirements/RCUApplicability.svg | 237 ++ > > > .../Design/Requirements/ReadersPartitionGP1.svg | 639 +++++ > > > .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html | 2799 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > > .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx | 2643 ++++++++++++++++++ > > > Documentation/RCU/Design/htmlqqz.sh | 108 + > > > 7 files changed, 6800 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/2013-08-is-it-dead.png > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/GPpartitionReaders1.svg > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/RCUApplicability.svg > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/ReadersPartitionGP1.svg > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx > > > > If Requirements.html is machine-generated and shouldn't be hand-edited, > > and it can be generated without any special tools, then I don't think it > > should be committed in the tree; I'd suggest putting it in .gitignore > > and generating it from one of the various "make docs" invocations. > > I considered doing that, but then decided that it is nice for people to > be able train their browser directly on the file without having to know > what scripts to run. > > Hmmm... I suppose I could construct a Makefile that dealt with that > though... I will give this some thought, and if it looks good, I will > add the Makefiles and "git rm" the .htmlx files. > > > Alternatively, if you want to make sure a usable version is in-tree, you > > could make the script reversible (easy enough to do if the compiled > > version includes some marker comments or similar), and then tell people > > to run it in reverse mode, edit, and run it in forward mode. Then you > > don't need the .htmlx file at all. :) > > Decades ago, back when I (against all evidence) believed I could > consistently avoid making stupid mistakes, you might have been able to > convince me that this was a good idea. ;-)
Because you don't want to complicate the script, or because you don't want to accidentally edit the wrong version? (Note that a carefully written script would mean it doesn't matter which version you edit.)
A third alternative would be to include the answers inline right after the questions, and optionally add a tiny bit of JavaScript that hides them by default and lets you click to show the answer. :)
| |