linux-kernel - [PATCH 09/17] rcu: update.c: get rid of some doc warnings

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <c69a85d13717c2aec563f702bffd7cd1e3be6a88.1584456635.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 17 Mar 2020 15:54:18 +0100
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
To:     Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 09/17] rcu: update.c: get rid of some doc warnings

We need to escape *ret, as otherwise the documentation system
thinks that this is an incomplete emphasis block:

	./kernel/rcu/update.c:65: WARNING: Inline emphasis start-string without end-string.
	./kernel/rcu/update.c:65: WARNING: Inline emphasis start-string without end-string.
	./kernel/rcu/update.c:70: WARNING: Inline emphasis start-string without end-string.
	./kernel/rcu/update.c:82: WARNING: Inline emphasis start-string without end-string.

Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/rcu/update.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
index b1fa519e5890..16058a5e6da4 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
@@ -63,12 +63,12 @@ module_param(rcu_normal_after_boot, int, 0);
  * rcu_read_lock_held_common() - might we be in RCU-sched read-side critical section?
  * @ret:	Best guess answer if lockdep cannot be relied on
  *
- * Returns true if lockdep must be ignored, in which case *ret contains
+ * Returns true if lockdep must be ignored, in which case ``*ret`` contains
  * the best guess described below.  Otherwise returns false, in which
- * case *ret tells the caller nothing and the caller should instead
+ * case ``*ret`` tells the caller nothing and the caller should instead
  * consult lockdep.
  *
- * If CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC is selected, set *ret to nonzero iff in an
+ * If CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC is selected, set ``*ret`` to nonzero iff in an
  * RCU-sched read-side critical section.  In absence of
  * CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC, this assumes we are in an RCU-sched read-side
  * critical section unless it can prove otherwise.  Note that disabling
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ module_param(rcu_normal_after_boot, int, 0);
  *
  * Note that if the CPU is in the idle loop from an RCU point of view (ie:
  * that we are in the section between rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit())
- * then rcu_read_lock_held() sets *ret to false even if the CPU did an
+ * then rcu_read_lock_held() sets ``*ret`` to false even if the CPU did an
  * rcu_read_lock().  The reason for this is that RCU ignores CPUs that are
  * in such a section, considering these as in extended quiescent state,
  * so such a CPU is effectively never in an RCU read-side critical section
-- 
2.24.1