Commit a3005973 authored by Jakub Kicinski's avatar Jakub Kicinski Committed by Paolo Abeni
Browse files

docs: netdev: add missing back ticks 



I think double back ticks are more correct. Add where they are missing.

Signed-off-by: default avatarJakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: default avatarFlorian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPaolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
parent 3eca3814

Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst

+6 −6
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -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?