Minki/linux
1
0
Fork 1
mirror of https://github.com/torvalds/linux.git synced 2024-09-21 07:23:06 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs: path-lookup: markup fixes for emphasis

Browse Source 
Underscores were being used for emphasis, but these are rendered verbatim
in HTML output. reStructuredText uses asterisks for emphasis. I *think* I
caught all of them.

Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200727121525.28103-2-vegard.nossum@oracle.com
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
This commit is contained in:
Vegard Nossum 2020-07-27 14:15:25 +02:00 committed by Jonathan Corbet
parent 87b92d4b86
commit 286b7e24ae
1 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
View File

@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ happened to be looking at a dentry that was moved in this way,
it might end up continuing the search down the wrong chain,
and so miss out on part of the correct chain.
The name-lookup process (``d_lookup()``) does _not_ try to prevent this
The name-lookup process (``d_lookup()``) does *not* try to prevent this
from happening, but only to detect when it happens.
``rename_lock`` is a seqlock that is updated whenever any dentry is
renamed. If ``d_lookup`` finds that a rename happened while it
@ -398,7 +398,7 @@ held.
``struct qstr last``
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a string together with a length (i.e. _not_ ``nul`` terminated)
This is a string together with a length (i.e. *not* ``nul`` terminated)
that is the "next" component in the pathname.
``int last_type``
@ -720,7 +720,7 @@ against a dentry. The length and name pointer are copied into local
variables, then ``read_seqcount_retry()`` is called to confirm the two
are consistent, and only then is ``->d_compare()`` called. When
standard filename comparison is used, ``dentry_cmp()`` is called
instead. Notably it does _not_ use ``read_seqcount_retry()``, but
instead. Notably it does *not* use ``read_seqcount_retry()``, but
instead has a large comment explaining why the consistency guarantee
isn't necessary. A subsequent ``read_seqcount_retry()`` will be
sufficient to catch any problem that could occur at this point.
@ -928,7 +928,7 @@ if anything goes wrong it is much safer to just abort and try a more
sedate approach.
The emphasis here is "try quickly and check". It should probably be
"try quickly _and carefully,_ then check". The fact that checking is
"try quickly *and carefully*, then check". The fact that checking is
needed is a reminder that the system is dynamic and only a limited
number of things are safe at all. The most likely cause of errors in
this whole process is assuming something is safe when in reality it