linux-kernel - [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/19] rcu: Get rid of some doc warnings in update.c

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

Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 10:10:48 -0700
From:   paulmck@...nel.org
To:     rcu@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/19] rcu: Get rid of some doc warnings in update.c

From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>

This commit escapes *ret, because 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>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...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 28a8bdc..72461dd8 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
-- 
2.9.5