The Documentation/bpf/standardization subdirectory contains documents
that will be standardized with the IETF. There are a few things we can
do to clean it up:

- Move linux-notes.rst back to Documentation/bpf. It doesn't belong in
  the standardization directory.
- Move ABI-specific verbiage from instruction-set.rst into a new abi.rst
  document. This document will be expanded significantly over time. For
  now, we just need to get anything describing ABI out of
  instruction-set.rst.
- Say BPF instead of eBPF in our documents. It's just creating
  confusion.

There is more we can and should do. For example, we should create a
maps.rst document that will be a proposed standard for cross platform
map types, and remove any relevant content from instruction-set.rst.
This can be done in a subsequent patch set.

David Vernet (3):
  bpf,docs: Move linux-notes.rst to root bpf docs tree
  bpf,docs: Add abi.rst document to standardization subdirectory
  bpf,docs: s/eBPF/BPF in standards documents

 Documentation/bpf/index.rst                   |  1 +
 .../bpf/{standardization => }/linux-notes.rst |  0
 Documentation/bpf/standardization/abi.rst     | 25 ++++++++++++
 Documentation/bpf/standardization/index.rst   |  2 +-
 .../bpf/standardization/instruction-set.rst   | 38 ++++++-------------
 5 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
 rename Documentation/bpf/{standardization => }/linux-notes.rst (100%)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/bpf/standardization/abi.rst

-- 
2.41.0

Hello:

This series was applied to bpf/bpf.git (master)
by Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>:

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 10:59:45 -0500 you wrote:
> The Documentation/bpf/standardization subdirectory contains documents
> that will be standardized with the IETF. There are a few things we can
> do to clean it up:
> 
> - Move linux-notes.rst back to Documentation/bpf. It doesn't belong in
>   the standardization directory.
> - Move ABI-specific verbiage from instruction-set.rst into a new abi.rst
>   document. This document will be expanded significantly over time. For
>   now, we just need to get anything describing ABI out of
>   instruction-set.rst.
> - Say BPF instead of eBPF in our documents. It's just creating
>   confusion.
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [bpf-next,1/3] bpf,docs: Move linux-notes.rst to root bpf docs tree
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf/c/aee1720eeb87
  - [bpf-next,2/3] bpf,docs: Add abi.rst document to standardization subdirectory
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf/c/deb884072546
  - [bpf-next,3/3] bpf,docs: s/eBPF/BPF in standards documents
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf/c/7d35eb1a184a

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html