Hi,
Maybe we can just throw away that section of "Supplemental
documentation" and its link ?
Nowadays, there is much more SmPL provided, and the rst file
describes better and up-to-date information.
Would a link to
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/coccinelle.html
be useful to point to latest version ?
Sincerely,
Le 09/03/2026 à 17:28, Haoyang Liu a écrit :
On 3/10/2026 12:10 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
LIU Haoyang <[email protected]> writes:
The original supplemental documentation for coccicheck is
https://bottest.wiki.kernel.org/coccicheck, which redirects to a not
found page,
thus change it to https://bottest.wiki.kernel.org/coccicheck.html,
which adds a suffix to original URL to make it direct to the right page.
Signed-off-by: LIU Haoyang <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst b/Documentation/
dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
index 2b942e3c8049..f73ccf5397f3 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ Supplemental documentation
For supplemental documentation refer to the wiki:
-https://bottest.wiki.kernel.org/coccicheck
+https://bottest.wiki.kernel.org/coccicheck.html
The wiki documentation always refers to the linux-next version of
the script.
I'll apply this - a working URL is better than a broken one. But is
there really nothing better to link to than a page that warns "OBSOLETE
CONTENT" at the top?
Dear Jon,
Unfortunately, I do not find any other documents about this script, so I
have to use it even though it's obsolete.
Sincerely,
Haoyang
Thanks,
jon
