Re: [PATCH] kselftest docs: remove reference to obsolete/archived wiki
Shuah Khan <[email protected]> Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:02:00 -0600
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.workflows,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kselftest |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 6/18/26 02:41, Brett Sheffield wrote: >> On 6/17/26 19:03, Shuah Khan wrote: >>> On 6/17/26 17:57, Rafael Passos wrote: >>>> This link in the docs point to a wiki that is no longer active. >>>> >>>> The wiki was moved to archive.kernel.org, and there is a warning: >>>> "OBSOLETE CONTENT This wiki has been archived and the content is >>>> no longer updated." >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael Passos <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Documentation/dev-tools/kselftest.rst | 5 ----- >>>> 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kselftest.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kselftest.rst >>>> index d7bfe320338c..64c0ec7428a2 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kselftest.rst >>>> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kselftest.rst >>>> @@ -15,11 +15,6 @@ able to run that test on an older kernel. Hence, it is important to keep >>>> code that can still test an older kernel and make sure it skips the test >>>> gracefully on newer releases. >>>> -You can find additional information on Kselftest framework, how to >>>> -write new tests using the framework on Kselftest wiki: >>>> - >>>> -https://kselftest.wiki.kernel.org/ >>>> - >>>> On some systems, hot-plug tests could hang forever waiting for cpu and >>>> memory to be ready to be offlined. A special hot-plug target is created >>>> to run the full range of hot-plug tests. In default mode, hot-plug tests run >>> >>> >>> Looks good to me. >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]> >> >> Jon, >> >> I can take this through kselftest tree as I usually do. >> >> thanks, >> -- Shuah > > Hi Shuah, Jon et al, > > I've been trying to get the same change merged since August 2025: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/[email protected]/ > > resent in January: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/[email protected]/ > > It's great that this trivial fix is finally getting merged, but can someone > explain why this patch was accepted in preference to the one I sent in August? > Brett, My apologies for not taking your patch earlier. Considering the effort you put in with a re-sending the patch and following up here, it is only fair for me to take yours instead. Hope it will apply cleanly on top of kselftest-next Rafael, I am going to take Brett;s patch instead of yours. Apologies to both of you for the mix up. thanks, -- Shuah