linux-kernel - Re: [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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 17 Mar 2020 09:45:01 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        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: Re: [PATCH 09/17] rcu: update.c: get rid of some doc warnings

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 03:54:18PM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> 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>

Applied, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul

> ---
>  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
>