Re: [PATCH -rcu] Documentation/RCU: Fix emphasis markers

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:32:36PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> "-foo-" does not work as emphasis in ReST markdown.
> Use "*foo*" instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>

Queued, thank you!  Or if this should instead go via the Documentation
tree:

Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>

> ---
> Hi Paul,
> 
> This is relative to -rcu's dev branch.
> I've started learning how to do ReST markdown. ;-)
> 
> For emphasis, both "*foo*" and "_bar_" work.
> I see several "*foo*" patterns in other .rst files under RCU/.
> 
> Yes, I have now sphinx installed in a container for "make htmldocs" to work.
> "make pdfdocs" does not work as expected at the moment, though.

Installing it in a container does sound very good!  My experience is
that I hack one version into working, but then it all falls apart
the the next time a sphinx upgrade is needed.  :-/

							Thanx, Paul

>         Thanks, Akira
> --
>  Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst       | 24 ++++++++++++------------
>  Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst |  6 +++---
>  Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst       |  8 ++++----
>  3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst
> index 1030119294d0..a71d3f134323 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst
> @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
>  
>  1.	Does the update code have proper mutual exclusion?
>  
> -	RCU does allow -readers- to run (almost) naked, but -writers- must
> +	RCU does allow *readers* to run (almost) naked, but *writers* must
>  	still use some sort of mutual exclusion, such as:
>  
>  	a.	locking,
> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
>  	critical section is every bit as bad as letting them leak out
>  	from under a lock.  Unless, of course, you have arranged some
>  	other means of protection, such as a lock or a reference count
> -	-before- letting them out of the RCU read-side critical section.
> +	*before* letting them out of the RCU read-side critical section.
>  
>  3.	Does the update code tolerate concurrent accesses?
>  
> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
>  	c.	Make updates appear atomic to readers.	For example,
>  		pointer updates to properly aligned fields will
>  		appear atomic, as will individual atomic primitives.
> -		Sequences of operations performed under a lock will -not-
> +		Sequences of operations performed under a lock will *not*
>  		appear to be atomic to RCU readers, nor will sequences
>  		of multiple atomic primitives.
>  
> @@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
>  	for example) may be omitted.
>  
>  10.	Conversely, if you are in an RCU read-side critical section,
> -	and you don't hold the appropriate update-side lock, you -must-
> +	and you don't hold the appropriate update-side lock, you *must*
>  	use the "_rcu()" variants of the list macros.  Failing to do so
>  	will break Alpha, cause aggressive compilers to generate bad code,
>  	and confuse people trying to read your code.
> @@ -346,12 +346,12 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
>  	callback pending, then that RCU callback will execute on some
>  	surviving CPU.	(If this was not the case, a self-spawning RCU
>  	callback would prevent the victim CPU from ever going offline.)
> -	Furthermore, CPUs designated by rcu_nocbs= might well -always-
> +	Furthermore, CPUs designated by rcu_nocbs= might well *always*
>  	have their RCU callbacks executed on some other CPUs, in fact,
>  	for some  real-time workloads, this is the whole point of using
>  	the rcu_nocbs= kernel boot parameter.
>  
> -13.	Unlike other forms of RCU, it -is- permissible to block in an
> +13.	Unlike other forms of RCU, it *is* permissible to block in an
>  	SRCU read-side critical section (demarked by srcu_read_lock()
>  	and srcu_read_unlock()), hence the "SRCU": "sleepable RCU".
>  	Please note that if you don't need to sleep in read-side critical
> @@ -398,16 +398,16 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
>  14.	The whole point of call_rcu(), synchronize_rcu(), and friends
>  	is to wait until all pre-existing readers have finished before
>  	carrying out some otherwise-destructive operation.  It is
> -	therefore critically important to -first- remove any path
> +	therefore critically important to *first* remove any path
>  	that readers can follow that could be affected by the
> -	destructive operation, and -only- -then- invoke call_rcu(),
> +	destructive operation, and *only then* invoke call_rcu(),
>  	synchronize_rcu(), or friends.
>  
>  	Because these primitives only wait for pre-existing readers, it
>  	is the caller's responsibility to guarantee that any subsequent
>  	readers will execute safely.
>  
> -15.	The various RCU read-side primitives do -not- necessarily contain
> +15.	The various RCU read-side primitives do *not* necessarily contain
>  	memory barriers.  You should therefore plan for the CPU
>  	and the compiler to freely reorder code into and out of RCU
>  	read-side critical sections.  It is the responsibility of the
> @@ -446,8 +446,8 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
>  	pass in a function defined within a loadable module, then it in
>  	necessary to wait for all pending callbacks to be invoked after
>  	the last invocation and before unloading that module.  Note that
> -	it is absolutely -not- sufficient to wait for a grace period!
> -	The current (say) synchronize_rcu() implementation is -not-
> +	it is absolutely *not* sufficient to wait for a grace period!
> +	The current (say) synchronize_rcu() implementation is *not*
>  	guaranteed to wait for callbacks registered on other CPUs.
>  	Or even on the current CPU if that CPU recently went offline
>  	and came back online.
> @@ -457,7 +457,7 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
>  	-	call_rcu() -> rcu_barrier()
>  	-	call_srcu() -> srcu_barrier()
>  
> -	However, these barrier functions are absolutely -not- guaranteed
> +	However, these barrier functions are absolutely *not* guaranteed
>  	to wait for a grace period.  In fact, if there are no call_rcu()
>  	callbacks waiting anywhere in the system, rcu_barrier() is within
>  	its rights to return immediately.
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst b/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst
> index f3e587acb4de..0b418a5b243c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst
> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ Follow these rules to keep your RCU code working properly:
>  	-	Set bits and clear bits down in the must-be-zero low-order
>  		bits of that pointer.  This clearly means that the pointer
>  		must have alignment constraints, for example, this does
> -		-not- work in general for char* pointers.
> +		*not* work in general for char* pointers.
>  
>  	-	XOR bits to translate pointers, as is done in some
>  		classic buddy-allocator algorithms.
> @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ Follow these rules to keep your RCU code working properly:
>  		Please see the "CONTROL DEPENDENCIES" section of
>  		Documentation/memory-barriers.txt for more details.
>  
> -	-	The pointers are not equal -and- the compiler does
> +	-	The pointers are not equal *and* the compiler does
>  		not have enough information to deduce the value of the
>  		pointer.  Note that the volatile cast in rcu_dereference()
>  		will normally prevent the compiler from knowing too much.
> @@ -360,7 +360,7 @@ in turn destroying the ordering between this load and the loads of the
>  return values.  This can result in "p->b" returning pre-initialization
>  garbage values.
>  
> -In short, rcu_dereference() is -not- optional when you are going to
> +In short, rcu_dereference() is *not* optional when you are going to
>  dereference the resulting pointer.
>  
>  
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst
> index 7148e9be08c3..1cc944aec46f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst
> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ warnings:
>  
>  -	Booting Linux using a console connection that is too slow to
>  	keep up with the boot-time console-message rate.  For example,
> -	a 115Kbaud serial console can be -way- too slow to keep up
> +	a 115Kbaud serial console can be *way* too slow to keep up
>  	with boot-time message rates, and will frequently result in
>  	RCU CPU stall warning messages.  Especially if you have added
>  	debug printk()s.
> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ warnings:
>  	leading the realization that the CPU had failed.
>  
>  The RCU, RCU-sched, and RCU-tasks implementations have CPU stall warning.
> -Note that SRCU does -not- have CPU stall warnings.  Please note that
> +Note that SRCU does *not* have CPU stall warnings.  Please note that
>  RCU only detects CPU stalls when there is a grace period in progress.
>  No grace period, no CPU stall warnings.
>  
> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_TIMEOUT
>  	this parameter is checked only at the beginning of a cycle.
>  	So if you are 10 seconds into a 40-second stall, setting this
>  	sysfs parameter to (say) five will shorten the timeout for the
> -	-next- stall, or the following warning for the current stall
> +	*next* stall, or the following warning for the current stall
>  	(assuming the stall lasts long enough).  It will not affect the
>  	timing of the next warning for the current stall.
>  
> @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ causing stalls, and that the stall was affecting RCU-sched.  This message
>  will normally be followed by stack dumps for each CPU.  Please note that
>  PREEMPT_RCU builds can be stalled by tasks as well as by CPUs, and that
>  the tasks will be indicated by PID, for example, "P3421".  It is even
> -possible for an rcu_state stall to be caused by both CPUs -and- tasks,
> +possible for an rcu_state stall to be caused by both CPUs *and* tasks,
>  in which case the offending CPUs and tasks will all be called out in the list.
>  
>  CPU 2's "(3 GPs behind)" indicates that this CPU has not interacted with
> -- 
> 2.17.1
>