Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 6 Nov 2019 00:21:25 +0530
From:   Amol Grover <frextrite@gmail.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc:     rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Phong Tran <tranmanphong@gmail.com>,
        Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik04@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: RCU: whatisRCU: Fix formatting for
 section 2
Message-ID: <20191105185125.GA13672@workstation>
References: <20191105073340.GA3682@workstation-kernel-dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191105073340.GA3682@workstation-kernel-dev>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 01:03:40PM +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
> Convert RCU API methods text to sub-headings and
> add footnote linking to 2 literary notes
> under rcu_dereference() section for improved UX
> 
> Signed-off-by: Amol Grover <frextrite@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst | 14 ++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst
> index ae40c8bcc56c..4c6f1f595757 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst
> @@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ later.  See the kernel docbook documentation for more info, or look directly
>  at the function header comments.
>  
>  rcu_read_lock()
> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  
>  	void rcu_read_lock(void);
>  
> @@ -164,6 +165,7 @@ rcu_read_lock()
>  	longer-term references to data structures.
>  
>  rcu_read_unlock()
> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  
>  	void rcu_read_unlock(void);
>  
> @@ -172,6 +174,7 @@ rcu_read_unlock()
>  	read-side critical sections may be nested and/or overlapping.
>  
>  synchronize_rcu()
> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  
>  	void synchronize_rcu(void);
>  
> @@ -225,6 +228,7 @@ synchronize_rcu()
>  	checklist.txt for some approaches to limiting the update rate.
>  
>  rcu_assign_pointer()
> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  
>  	void rcu_assign_pointer(p, typeof(p) v);
>  
> @@ -245,6 +249,7 @@ rcu_assign_pointer()
>  	the _rcu list-manipulation primitives such as list_add_rcu().
>  
>  rcu_dereference()
> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  
>  	typeof(p) rcu_dereference(p);
>  
> @@ -280,7 +285,7 @@ rcu_dereference()
>  	unnecessary overhead on Alpha CPUs.
>  
>  	Note that the value returned by rcu_dereference() is valid
> -	only within the enclosing RCU read-side critical section [1].
> +	only within the enclosing RCU read-side critical section [1]_.
>  	For example, the following is -not- legal::
>  
>  		rcu_read_lock();
> @@ -304,9 +309,9 @@ rcu_dereference()
>  	at any time, including immediately after the rcu_dereference().
>  	And, again like rcu_assign_pointer(), rcu_dereference() is
>  	typically used indirectly, via the _rcu list-manipulation
> -	primitives, such as list_for_each_entry_rcu() [2].
> +	primitives, such as list_for_each_entry_rcu() [2]_.
>  
> -	[1] The variant rcu_dereference_protected() can be used outside
> +..	[1] The variant rcu_dereference_protected() can be used outside
>  	of an RCU read-side critical section as long as the usage is
>  	protected by locks acquired by the update-side code.  This variant
>  	avoids the lockdep warning that would happen when using (for
> @@ -319,7 +324,8 @@ rcu_dereference()
>  	a lockdep splat is emitted.  See Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
>  	and the API's code comments for more details and example usage.
>  
> -	[2] If the list_for_each_entry_rcu() instance might be used by
> +
> +..	[2] If the list_for_each_entry_rcu() instance might be used by
>  	update-side code as well as by RCU readers, then an additional
>  	lockdep expression can be added to its list of arguments.
>  	For example, given an additional "lock_is_held(&mylock)" argument,
> -- 
> 2.20.1
>

Please ignore this patch.

Thanks
Amol