leandrof/linux
1
0
Fork 0
forked from Minki/linux
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs: netdev: add missing back ticks

Browse Source 
I think double back ticks are more correct. Add where they are missing.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
This commit is contained in:
Jakub Kicinski 2022-03-29 21:25:02 -07:00 committed by Paolo Abeni
parent 3eca381457
commit a300597318
1 changed files with 6 additions and 6 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

12
Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
View File

@ -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?