Commit a3005973 authored by Jakub Kicinski's avatar Jakub Kicinski Committed by Paolo Abeni

docs: netdev: add missing back ticks

I think double back ticks are more correct. Add where they are missing.
Signed-off-by: default avatarJakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: default avatarFlorian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPaolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
parent 3eca3814
...@@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ or the user space project is not reviewed on netdev include a link ...@@ -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. to a public repo where user space patches can be seen.
In case user space tooling lives in a separate repository but is 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 user space patches should form separate series (threads) when posted
to the mailing list, e.g.:: to the mailing list, e.g.::
...@@ -251,18 +251,18 @@ traffic if we can help it. ...@@ -251,18 +251,18 @@ traffic if we can help it.
netdevsim is great, can I extend it for my out-of-tree tests? netdevsim is great, can I extend it for my out-of-tree tests?
------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
No, `netdevsim` is a test vehicle solely for upstream tests. No, ``netdevsim`` is a test vehicle solely for upstream tests.
(Please add your tests under tools/testing/selftests/.) (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. in a way which would break what would normally be considered uAPI.
Is netdevsim considered a "user" of an API? Is netdevsim considered a "user" of an API?
------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
Linux kernel has a long standing rule that no API should be added unless 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 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 strongly encouraged when adding new APIs, but ``netdevsim`` in itself
is **not** considered a use case/user. is **not** considered a use case/user.
Any other tips to help ensure my net/net-next patch gets OK'd? Any other tips to help ensure my net/net-next patch gets OK'd?
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment