linux-kernel - [PATCH] ftrace/documentation: Fix RST C code blocks

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]

Message-ID: <20201118103502.24e90f7c@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 18 Nov 2020 10:35:02 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] ftrace/documentation: Fix RST C code blocks

From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>

Some C code in the ftrace-users.rst document is missing RST C block
annotation, which has to be added.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201116173502.392a769c@canb.auug.org.au

Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
---
 Documentation/trace/ftrace-uses.rst | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/trace/ftrace-uses.rst b/Documentation/trace/ftrace-uses.rst
index 5981d5691745..f7d98ae5b885 100644
--- a/Documentation/trace/ftrace-uses.rst
+++ b/Documentation/trace/ftrace-uses.rst
@@ -116,6 +116,8 @@ called by a callback may also be traced, and call that same callback,
 recursion protection must be used. There are two helper functions that
 can help in this regard. If you start your code with:
 
+.. code-block:: c
+
 	int bit;
 
 	bit = ftrace_test_recursion_trylock(ip, parent_ip);
@@ -124,6 +126,8 @@ can help in this regard. If you start your code with:
 
 and end it with:
 
+.. code-block:: c
+
 	ftrace_test_recursion_unlock(bit);
 
 The code in between will be safe to use, even if it ends up calling a
@@ -145,6 +149,8 @@ protection, it is best to make sure that RCU is "watching", otherwise
 that data or critical section will not be protected as expected. In this
 case add:
 
+.. code-block:: c
+
 	if (!rcu_is_watching())
 		return;
 
-- 
2.25.4