Re: Supplemental documentation

From: Greg KH (gregat_private)
Date: Mon Sep 24 2001 - 11:30:17 PDT

  • Next message: richard offer: "Re: GPL only usage of security.h"

    On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 12:00:26PM -0500, Smalley, Stephen wrote:
    > 
    > >Yes, that's the place for it.  Add it to the Makefile in there too, so
    > >it will be generated when a user runs "make psdocs" or one of the
    > >variants of it.
    > 
    > Ok, a few minor questions before I do this:
    > 1) Should I make it a .tmpl file and have the Makefile run docgen on it?
    > At present, it doesn't use include any inline kernel documentation,
    > and we can't use the current tools on security.h, but I suppose we could
    > use the tools to grab the inline documentation from security.c.
    
    Yes, I think makeing it a .tmpl file would be good.  All of the other
    documentation books in there are in that format.
    
    > 2) At present, it is an article, not a book.  Does that matter?
    > Should it be changed to a book?
    
    What's the difference?  Some formatting?
    
    > 3) When I run 'make psdocs' on the kernel tree, it fails on the kernel-api
    > document, so it doesn't get to any of the remaining books.  Is that likely
    > to be fixed in the kernel tree soon?  
    
    I have some patches around here in my hotplug pci tree that fixes that.
    I'll try to remember to push them to the proper people today.  And I'll
    add them to the lsm tree for now.
    
    greg k-h
    
    _______________________________________________
    linux-security-module mailing list
    linux-security-moduleat_private
    http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Sep 24 2001 - 11:35:43 PDT