Em Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:22:09 -0600 Jonathan Corbet <cor...@lwn.net> escreveu:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 10:11:06 -0700 > Eric Biggers <ebigg...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > Someone already sent out a fix for this: > > https://lkml.kernel.org/linux-doc/52f851cb5c9fd2ecae97deec7e168e66b8c295c3.1591137229.git.mchehab+hua...@kernel.org/ No problem from my side. > > > > Is it intentional that you're sending out a different fix rather than > > applying > > that one? > > It wasn't, actually, I'm just finding myself more than usually challenged > these days. > > That said, removing the table entirely seems ... excessive. It's not > terrible the way it is, or we could make it: Jon, I actually tried a patch close to yours before the patch I actually sent upstream. On my previous version, I was doing: ======================== ======================================================= ... test_dummy_encryption test_dummy_encryption=%s Enable dummy encryption, which provides a fake fscrypt context. The fake fscrypt context is used by xfstests. The argument may be either "v1" or "v2", in order to select the corresponding fscrypt policy version. ... ======================== ======================================================= The problem with the above is that Sphinx understood the first line as one row, and the second one as a different one. So, the HTML output would be like: <table> ... <tr><td>test_dummy_encryption</td></tr> <tr><td>test_dummy_encryption=%s</td> <td>Enable dummy encryption, which provides a fake fscrypt context. The fake fscrypt context is used by xfstests. The argument may be either "v1" or "v2", in order to select the corresponding fscrypt policy version.</td> </tr> (e. g. it would look like the first parameter lacks description) Which is not the intended result. I was unable to identify a way to teach Sphinx that the second line was a continuation of the first (A ReST equivalent to placing a \ at the end of a line). Still, the html output with the above is not that bad, and it should be clear for readers that the description of the second parameter is also valid for the first. Thanks, Mauro
