Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   "Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@linutronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        "Sebastian A. Siewior" <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@linutronix.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 02/20] seqlock: Properly format kernel-doc code samples
Date:   Tue, 30 Jun 2020 07:44:34 +0200
Message-Id: <20200630054452.3675847-3-a.darwish@linutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <20200630054452.3675847-1-a.darwish@linutronix.de>
References: <20200519214547.352050-1-a.darwish@linutronix.de>
 <20200630054452.3675847-1-a.darwish@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Align the code samples and note sections inside kernel-doc comments with
tabs. This way they can be properly parsed and rendered by Sphinx. It
also makes the code samples easier to read from text editors.

Signed-off-by: Ahmed S. Darwish <a.darwish@linutronix.de>
---
 include/linux/seqlock.h | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/seqlock.h b/include/linux/seqlock.h
index e54ff48e87f8..d3bba59eb4df 100644
--- a/include/linux/seqlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/seqlock.h
@@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ static inline void raw_write_seqcount_end(seqcount_t *s)
  *
  * This can be used to provide an ordering guarantee instead of the
  * usual consistency guarantee. It is one wmb cheaper, because we can
- * collapse the two back-to-back wmb()s.
+ * collapse the two back-to-back wmb()s::
  *
  * Note that writes surrounding the barrier should be declared atomic (e.g.
  * via WRITE_ONCE): a) to ensure the writes become visible to other threads
@@ -325,64 +325,68 @@ static inline int raw_read_seqcount_latch(seqcount_t *s)
  * Very simply put: we first modify one copy and then the other. This ensures
  * there is always one copy in a stable state, ready to give us an answer.
  *
- * The basic form is a data structure like:
+ * The basic form is a data structure like::
  *
- * struct latch_struct {
- *	seqcount_t		seq;
- *	struct data_struct	data[2];
- * };
+ *	struct latch_struct {
+ *		seqcount_t		seq;
+ *		struct data_struct	data[2];
+ *	};
  *
  * Where a modification, which is assumed to be externally serialized, does the
- * following:
+ * following::
  *
- * void latch_modify(struct latch_struct *latch, ...)
- * {
- *	smp_wmb();	<- Ensure that the last data[1] update is visible
- *	latch->seq++;
- *	smp_wmb();	<- Ensure that the seqcount update is visible
+ *	void latch_modify(struct latch_struct *latch, ...)
+ *	{
+ *		smp_wmb();	// Ensure that the last data[1] update is visible
+ *		latch->seq++;
+ *		smp_wmb();	// Ensure that the seqcount update is visible
  *
- *	modify(latch->data[0], ...);
+ *		modify(latch->data[0], ...);
  *
- *	smp_wmb();	<- Ensure that the data[0] update is visible
- *	latch->seq++;
- *	smp_wmb();	<- Ensure that the seqcount update is visible
+ *		smp_wmb();	// Ensure that the data[0] update is visible
+ *		latch->seq++;
+ *		smp_wmb();	// Ensure that the seqcount update is visible
  *
- *	modify(latch->data[1], ...);
- * }
+ *		modify(latch->data[1], ...);
+ *	}
  *
- * The query will have a form like:
+ * The query will have a form like::
  *
- * struct entry *latch_query(struct latch_struct *latch, ...)
- * {
- *	struct entry *entry;
- *	unsigned seq, idx;
+ *	struct entry *latch_query(struct latch_struct *latch, ...)
+ *	{
+ *		struct entry *entry;
+ *		unsigned seq, idx;
  *
- *	do {
- *		seq = raw_read_seqcount_latch(&latch->seq);
+ *		do {
+ *			seq = raw_read_seqcount_latch(&latch->seq);
  *
- *		idx = seq & 0x01;
- *		entry = data_query(latch->data[idx], ...);
+ *			idx = seq & 0x01;
+ *			entry = data_query(latch->data[idx], ...);
  *
- *		smp_rmb();
- *	} while (seq != latch->seq);
+ *			smp_rmb();
+ *		} while (seq != latch->seq);
  *
- *	return entry;
- * }
+ *		return entry;
+ *	}
  *
  * So during the modification, queries are first redirected to data[1]. Then we
  * modify data[0]. When that is complete, we redirect queries back to data[0]
  * and we can modify data[1].
  *
- * NOTE: The non-requirement for atomic modifications does _NOT_ include
- *       the publishing of new entries in the case where data is a dynamic
- *       data structure.
+ * NOTE:
  *
- *       An iteration might start in data[0] and get suspended long enough
- *       to miss an entire modification sequence, once it resumes it might
- *       observe the new entry.
+ *	The non-requirement for atomic modifications does _NOT_ include
+ *	the publishing of new entries in the case where data is a dynamic
+ *	data structure.
  *
- * NOTE: When data is a dynamic data structure; one should use regular RCU
- *       patterns to manage the lifetimes of the objects within.
+ *	An iteration might start in data[0] and get suspended long enough
+ *	to miss an entire modification sequence, once it resumes it might
+ *	observe the new entry.
+ *
+ * NOTE:
+ *
+ *	When data is a dynamic data structure; one should use regular RCU
+ *	patterns to manage the lifetimes of the objects within.
  */
 static inline void raw_write_seqcount_latch(seqcount_t *s)
 {
-- 
2.20.1