[PATCH memory-barriers.txt 5/7] Documentation: Insert white spaces consistently

[Paul E. McKenney]

From: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@xxxxxxxxx>

The document uses two newlines between sections, one newline between
item and its detailed description, and two spaces between sentences.
However, there is few point that missed the rule.  This commit fix them
to use the rule consistently.

Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 1f1541862239..7133626a61d0 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -1733,15 +1733,15 @@ The Linux kernel has eight basic CPU memory barriers:
 
 
 All memory barriers except the data dependency barriers imply a compiler
-barrier. Data dependencies do not impose any additional compiler ordering.
+barrier.  Data dependencies do not impose any additional compiler ordering.
 
 Aside: In the case of data dependencies, the compiler would be expected
 to issue the loads in the correct order (eg. `a[b]` would have to load
 the value of b before loading a[b]), however there is no guarantee in
 the C specification that the compiler may not speculate the value of b
 (eg. is equal to 1) and load a before b (eg. tmp = a[1]; if (b != 1)
-tmp = a[b]; ). There is also the problem of a compiler reloading b after
-having loaded a[b], thus having a newer copy of b than a[b]. A consensus
+tmp = a[b]; ).  There is also the problem of a compiler reloading b after
+having loaded a[b], thus having a newer copy of b than a[b].  A consensus
 has not yet been reached about these problems, however the READ_ONCE()
 macro is a good place to start looking.
 
@@ -1796,6 +1796,7 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
 
 
  (*) lockless_dereference();
+
      This can be thought of as a pointer-fetch wrapper around the
      smp_read_barrier_depends() data-dependency barrier.
 
@@ -1897,7 +1898,7 @@ for each construct.  These operations all imply certain barriers:
      Memory operations issued before the ACQUIRE may be completed after
      the ACQUIRE operation has completed.  An smp_mb__before_spinlock(),
      combined with a following ACQUIRE, orders prior stores against
-     subsequent loads and stores. Note that this is weaker than smp_mb()!
+     subsequent loads and stores.  Note that this is weaker than smp_mb()!
      The smp_mb__before_spinlock() primitive is free on many architectures.
 
  (2) RELEASE operation implication:
@@ -2092,9 +2093,9 @@ or:
 	event_indicated = 1;
 	wake_up_process(event_daemon);
 
-A write memory barrier is implied by wake_up() and co. if and only if they wake
-something up.  The barrier occurs before the task state is cleared, and so sits
-between the STORE to indicate the event and the STORE to set TASK_RUNNING:
+A write memory barrier is implied by wake_up() and co.  if and only if they
+wake something up.  The barrier occurs before the task state is cleared, and so
+sits between the STORE to indicate the event and the STORE to set TASK_RUNNING:
 
 	CPU 1				CPU 2
 	===============================	===============================
@@ -2208,7 +2209,7 @@ three CPUs; then should the following sequence of events occur:
 
 Then there is no guarantee as to what order CPU 3 will see the accesses to *A
 through *H occur in, other than the constraints imposed by the separate locks
-on the separate CPUs. It might, for example, see:
+on the separate CPUs.  It might, for example, see:
 
 	*E, ACQUIRE M, ACQUIRE Q, *G, *C, *F, *A, *B, RELEASE Q, *D, *H, RELEASE M
 
@@ -2488,9 +2489,9 @@ The following operations are special locking primitives:
 	clear_bit_unlock();
 	__clear_bit_unlock();
 
-These implement ACQUIRE-class and RELEASE-class operations. These should be used in
-preference to other operations when implementing locking primitives, because
-their implementations can be optimised on many architectures.
+These implement ACQUIRE-class and RELEASE-class operations.  These should be
+used in preference to other operations when implementing locking primitives,
+because their implementations can be optimised on many architectures.
 
 [!] Note that special memory barrier primitives are available for these
 situations because on some CPUs the atomic instructions used imply full memory
@@ -2570,12 +2571,12 @@ explicit barriers are used.
 
 Normally this won't be a problem because the I/O accesses done inside such
 sections will include synchronous load operations on strictly ordered I/O
-registers that form implicit I/O barriers. If this isn't sufficient then an
+registers that form implicit I/O barriers.  If this isn't sufficient then an
 mmiowb() may need to be used explicitly.
 
 
 A similar situation may occur between an interrupt routine and two routines
-running on separate CPUs that communicate with each other. If such a case is
+running on separate CPUs that communicate with each other.  If such a case is
 likely, then interrupt-disabling locks should be used to guarantee ordering.
 
 
@@ -2589,8 +2590,8 @@ functions:
  (*) inX(), outX():
 
      These are intended to talk to I/O space rather than memory space, but
-     that's primarily a CPU-specific concept. The i386 and x86_64 processors do
-     indeed have special I/O space access cycles and instructions, but many
+     that's primarily a CPU-specific concept.  The i386 and x86_64 processors
+     do indeed have special I/O space access cycles and instructions, but many
      CPUs don't have such a concept.
 
      The PCI bus, amongst others, defines an I/O space concept which - on such
@@ -2612,7 +2613,7 @@ functions:
 
      Whether these are guaranteed to be fully ordered and uncombined with
      respect to each other on the issuing CPU depends on the characteristics
-     defined for the memory window through which they're accessing. On later
+     defined for the memory window through which they're accessing.  On later
      i386 architecture machines, for example, this is controlled by way of the
      MTRR registers.
 
@@ -2637,10 +2638,10 @@ functions:
  (*) readX_relaxed(), writeX_relaxed()
 
      These are similar to readX() and writeX(), but provide weaker memory
-     ordering guarantees. Specifically, they do not guarantee ordering with
+     ordering guarantees.  Specifically, they do not guarantee ordering with
      respect to normal memory accesses (e.g. DMA buffers) nor do they guarantee
-     ordering with respect to LOCK or UNLOCK operations. If the latter is
-     required, an mmiowb() barrier can be used. Note that relaxed accesses to
+     ordering with respect to LOCK or UNLOCK operations.  If the latter is
+     required, an mmiowb() barrier can be used.  Note that relaxed accesses to
      the same peripheral are guaranteed to be ordered with respect to each
      other.
 
@@ -3042,6 +3043,7 @@ The Alpha defines the Linux kernel's memory barrier model.
 
 See the subsection on "Cache Coherency" above.
 
+
 VIRTUAL MACHINE GUESTS
 ----------------------
 
@@ -3052,7 +3054,7 @@ barriers for this use-case would be possible but is often suboptimal.
 
 To handle this case optimally, low-level virt_mb() etc macros are available.
 These have the same effect as smp_mb() etc when SMP is enabled, but generate
-identical code for SMP and non-SMP systems. For example, virtual machine guests
+identical code for SMP and non-SMP systems.  For example, virtual machine guests
 should use virt_mb() rather than smp_mb() when synchronizing against a
 (possibly SMP) host.
 
@@ -3060,6 +3062,7 @@ These are equivalent to smp_mb() etc counterparts in all other respects,
 in particular, they do not control MMIO effects: to control
 MMIO effects, use mandatory barriers.
 
+
 ============
 EXAMPLE USES
 ============
-- 
2.5.2