On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 07:07:00AM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 11:05:17AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 04:11:59PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > > >> Sphinx reports htmldocs warnings on ext4 atomic block writes docs: > > >> > > >> Documentation/filesystems/ext4/atomic_writes.rst:5: WARNING: duplicate label atomic_writes, other instance in Documentation/filesystems/ext4/atomic_writes.rst > > >> Documentation/filesystems/ext4/atomic_writes.rst:207: WARNING: duplicate label atomic_write_bdev_support, other instance in Documentation/filesystems/ext4/atomic_writes.rst > > >> > > >> These warnings reference duplicated cross-reference labels to themselves in > > >> the same doc, which are because atomic_writes.rst is transcluded in > > >> overview.rst via include:: directive, thus the culprit docs get processed > > >> twice. > > > > > > <confused> How is that possible? atomic_writes.rst is only "include::"d > > > once in overview.rst. Is the file implicitly included through some > > > other means? > > > > Sphinx wants to snarf up every .rst file it sees, regardless of whether > > it is explicitly made part of the document tree. So it will pick up > > atomic_writes.rst separately from the include. Does that mean that overview.rst doesn't need to include the other files at all? > > This could be "fixed" by removing the .rst extension from the included > > file. But, since there is no use of the atomic_writes label to begin > > with, it's better to just take it out. The other fix, removing a cross > > reference, is not entirely ideal, but there is little text between the > > label and the reference. > > So removing the labels looks good to you, right? I don't care that much either way, but if sphinx is going to include every rst file implicitly then maybe we just get rid of the explicit includes? > Confused... Me too. --D > > -- > An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
