Mark key words 'gfp' and 'GFP_KERNEL' for syntax-highlighting.

Suggested-by: SJ Park <sj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Manuel Ebner <manuelebnerli@mailbox.org>
---
Suggestion:
 https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260430010332.114100-1-sj@kernel.org/
---
 Documentation/process/deprecated.rst | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst b/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
index 22a5e62c9..4d4d29b97 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
@@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ become, respectively::
 	ptr = kmalloc_flex(*ptr, flex_member, count [, gfp] );
 	__auto_type ptr = kmalloc_obj(struct foo [, gfp] );
 
-The argument gfp is optional, the default value is GFP_KERNEL.
+The argument `gfp` is optional, the default value is `GFP_KERNEL`.
 If `ptr->flex_member` is annotated with __counted_by(), the allocation
 will automatically fail if `count` is larger than the maximum
 representable value that can be stored in the counter member associated
-- 
2.54.0

On Wed, 09 Sep 2026, Manuel Ebner <manuelebnerli@mailbox.org> wrote:
> Mark key words 'gfp' and 'GFP_KERNEL' for syntax-highlighting.
>
> Suggested-by: SJ Park <sj@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Manuel Ebner <manuelebnerli@mailbox.org>
> ---
> Suggestion:
>  https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260430010332.114100-1-sj@kernel.org/
> ---
>  Documentation/process/deprecated.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst b/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> index 22a5e62c9..4d4d29b97 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> @@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ become, respectively::
>  	ptr = kmalloc_flex(*ptr, flex_member, count [, gfp] );
>  	__auto_type ptr = kmalloc_obj(struct foo [, gfp] );
>  
> -The argument gfp is optional, the default value is GFP_KERNEL.
> +The argument `gfp` is optional, the default value is `GFP_KERNEL`.
>  If `ptr->flex_member` is annotated with __counted_by(), the allocation
>  will automatically fail if `count` is larger than the maximum
>  representable value that can be stored in the counter member associated

Single backquotes in rst mean "interpreted text" [1], not markdown style
code.


BR,
Jani.


[1] https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/ref/rst/roles.html


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel

On Wed, 09 Sep 2026 20:00:47 +0300 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Sep 2026, Manuel Ebner <manuelebnerli@mailbox.org> wrote:
> > Mark key words 'gfp' and 'GFP_KERNEL' for syntax-highlighting.
> >
> > Suggested-by: SJ Park <sj@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Manuel Ebner <manuelebnerli@mailbox.org>
> > ---
> > Suggestion:
> >  https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260430010332.114100-1-sj@kernel.org/
> > ---
> >  Documentation/process/deprecated.rst | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst b/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> > index 22a5e62c9..4d4d29b97 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> > @@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ become, respectively::
> >  	ptr = kmalloc_flex(*ptr, flex_member, count [, gfp] );
> >  	__auto_type ptr = kmalloc_obj(struct foo [, gfp] );
> >  
> > -The argument gfp is optional, the default value is GFP_KERNEL.
> > +The argument `gfp` is optional, the default value is `GFP_KERNEL`.
> >  If `ptr->flex_member` is annotated with __counted_by(), the allocation
> >  will automatically fail if `count` is larger than the maximum
> >  representable value that can be stored in the counter member associated
> 
> Single backquotes in rst mean "interpreted text" [1], not markdown style
> code.

Because multiple other parts in the doc are using single backquotes, I feel
this patch is improving the consistency.  Using double backquotes would also be
nice.  I have no strong opinion here.


Thanks,
SJ

[...]

On Wed,  9 Sep 2026 16:12:54 +0200 Manuel Ebner <manuelebnerli@mailbox.org> wrote:

> Mark key words 'gfp' and 'GFP_KERNEL' for syntax-highlighting.
> 
> Suggested-by: SJ Park <sj@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Manuel Ebner <manuelebnerli@mailbox.org>
> ---
> Suggestion:
>  https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260430010332.114100-1-sj@kernel.org/
> ---
>  Documentation/process/deprecated.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst b/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> index 22a5e62c9..4d4d29b97 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> @@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ become, respectively::
>  	ptr = kmalloc_flex(*ptr, flex_member, count [, gfp] );
>  	__auto_type ptr = kmalloc_obj(struct foo [, gfp] );
>  
> -The argument gfp is optional, the default value is GFP_KERNEL.
> +The argument `gfp` is optional, the default value is `GFP_KERNEL`.
>  If `ptr->flex_member` is annotated with __counted_by(), the allocation
>  will automatically fail if `count` is larger than the maximum
>  representable value that can be stored in the counter member associated

I suggested the change to only 'gfp' and 'GFP_KERNEL' because those are what
newly added by your patch.  Because this is a separate patch, what about
scoping for larger area?

I wouldn't request you to update whole inconsistencies in this doc.  Making
only the paragraph more consistent looks making sense to me.  So, how about
doing same to "__counted_by()", too, as it is also in the same paragraph?


Thanks,
SJ

[...]

On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 07:25:26AM -0700, SJ Park wrote:
> only the paragraph more consistent looks making sense to me.  So, how about
> doing same to "__counted_by()", too, as it is also in the same paragraph?

I think that'll get auto-marked by our tooling already because of the
trailing "()".

-- 
Kees Cook

On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 09:14:25 -0700 Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 07:25:26AM -0700, SJ Park wrote:
> > only the paragraph more consistent looks making sense to me.  So, how about
> > doing same to "__counted_by()", too, as it is also in the same paragraph?
> 
> I think that'll get auto-marked by our tooling already because of the
> trailing "()".

You're right, thank you Kees!


Thanks,
SJ

[...]