[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] docs: rstfy s390 dasd ipl documentation
From: |
Cornelia Huck |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] docs: rstfy s390 dasd ipl documentation |
Date: |
Fri, 7 Feb 2020 16:22:21 +0100 |
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 12:05:09 +0000
Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:36, Cornelia Huck <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > While at it, also fix the numbering in 'What QEMU does'.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <address@hidden>
> > ---
>
> > diff --git a/docs/devel/s390-dasd-ipl.txt b/docs/devel/s390-dasd-ipl.rst
> > similarity index 77%
> > rename from docs/devel/s390-dasd-ipl.txt
> > rename to docs/devel/s390-dasd-ipl.rst
> > index 9107e048e4e6..1f6a7ea01ce6 100644
> > --- a/docs/devel/s390-dasd-ipl.txt
> > +++ b/docs/devel/s390-dasd-ipl.rst
> > @@ -1,25 +1,28 @@
> > -*****************************
> > -***** s390 hardware IPL *****
> > -*****************************
> > +Booting from real channel-attached devices on s390x
> > +===================================================
> > +
> > +s390 hardware IPL
> > +-----------------
> >
> > The s390 hardware IPL process consists of the following steps.
> >
> > -1. A READ IPL ccw is constructed in memory location 0x0.
> > +1. A READ IPL ccw is constructed in memory location ``0x0``.
> > This ccw, by definition, reads the IPL1 record which is located on the
> > disk
> > at cylinder 0 track 0 record 1. Note that the chain flag is on in this
> > ccw
> > so when it is complete another ccw will be fetched and executed from
> > memory
> > - location 0x08.
> > + location ``0x08``.
>
> I think the indentation here is off -- rST likes to see every line
> in a multiline bullet point start in the same column, like this:
>
> 1. A READ IPL ccw is constructed in memory location ``0x0``.
> This ccw, by ...
> at cylinder...
>
> Otherwise I think you end up with a blockquote by accident.
Hm, the resulting html looked sane to me... but making this consistent
is a good idea anyway.
>
> Formatting-wise the rest looks OK to me (and the other enumerated
> lists in this document don't have this odd indentation, just this
> first set of 1..4).
Thanks for looking!
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>