linux-kernel - [PATCH memory-model 8/8] atomic_ops.rst: Use `warning` rst directive

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1526338533-6044-8-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 May 2018 15:55:33 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...nel.org
Cc:     stern@...land.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@...il.com,
        will.deacon@....com, peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
        npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk,
        luc.maranget@...ia.fr, akiyks@...il.com,
        SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH memory-model 8/8] atomic_ops.rst: Use `warning` rst directive

From: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>

One warning message in 'atomic_ops.rst' is not using 'warning' rst
directive while others does.  This commit modifies the message to use
'warning' rst directive.

Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst | 10 ++++++----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst b/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
index 4ea4af71e68a..2e7165f86f55 100644
--- a/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
+++ b/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
@@ -466,10 +466,12 @@ Like the above, except that these routines return a boolean which
 indicates whether the changed bit was set _BEFORE_ the atomic bit
 operation.
 
-WARNING! It is incredibly important that the value be a boolean,
-ie. "0" or "1".  Do not try to be fancy and save a few instructions by
-declaring the above to return "long" and just returning something like
-"old_val & mask" because that will not work.
+
+.. warning::
+        It is incredibly important that the value be a boolean, ie. "0" or "1".
+        Do not try to be fancy and save a few instructions by declaring the
+        above to return "long" and just returning something like "old_val &
+        mask" because that will not work.
 
 For one thing, this return value gets truncated to int in many code
 paths using these interfaces, so on 64-bit if the bit is set in the
-- 
2.5.2