summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Documentation/networking
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>2022-03-30 07:25:02 +0300
committerPaolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>2022-03-31 11:49:39 +0300
commita300597318771f889136db36f9f0dcfd26b84f18 (patch)
tree1a7c0694b45e982a950f568c3d7e798853a3407f /Documentation/networking
parent3eca381457ca58fbde16f827ddfaaecde3d61127 (diff)
downloadlinux-a300597318771f889136db36f9f0dcfd26b84f18.tar.xz
docs: netdev: add missing back ticks
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>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/networking')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst12
1 files 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?