Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <b74e2e19-0317-e717-cc15-a7854b04adf4@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 18:23:09 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.4.2
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
From:   Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] docs/RCU/rcubarrier: Adjust 'Answer' parts of QQs as
 definition-lists
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

The "Answer" parts of QQs divert from proper format of definition-lists
as described at [1] and are not rendered as such.

Adjust them.

Link: [1] https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#definition-lists
Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst | 9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst
index 5a643e5233d5..9fb9ed777355 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst
@@ -296,7 +296,8 @@ Quick Quiz #1:
 	Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
 	be required?
 
-Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally
+Answer:
+	Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally
 	implemented for module unloading. Nikita Danilov was using
 	RCU in a filesystem, which resulted in a similar situation at
 	filesystem-unmount time. Dipankar Sarma coded up rcu_barrier()
@@ -315,7 +316,8 @@ Quick Quiz #2:
 	Why doesn't line 8 initialize rcu_barrier_cpu_count to zero,
 	thereby avoiding the need for lines 9 and 10?
 
-Answer: Suppose that the on_each_cpu() function shown on line 8 was
+Answer:
+	Suppose that the on_each_cpu() function shown on line 8 was
 	delayed, so that CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executed and
 	the corresponding grace period elapsed, all before CPU 1's
 	rcu_barrier_func() started executing.  This would result in
@@ -351,7 +353,8 @@ Quick Quiz #3:
 	are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in
 	rcu_barrier() returning prematurely?
 
-Answer: This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last
+Answer:
+	This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last
 	argument, the wait flag, set to "1". This flag is passed through
 	to smp_call_function() and further to smp_call_function_on_cpu(),
 	causing this latter to spin until the cross-CPU invocation of

base-commit: 741cfda870057958c53f9cb0b21ac33f531baaf4
-- 
2.25.1