docs: path-lookup: markup fixes for emphasis
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:
parent
87b92d4b86
commit
286b7e24ae
|
@ -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,
|
it might end up continuing the search down the wrong chain,
|
||||||
and so miss out on part of the correct 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.
|
from happening, but only to detect when it happens.
|
||||||
``rename_lock`` is a seqlock that is updated whenever any dentry is
|
``rename_lock`` is a seqlock that is updated whenever any dentry is
|
||||||
renamed. If ``d_lookup`` finds that a rename happened while it
|
renamed. If ``d_lookup`` finds that a rename happened while it
|
||||||
|
@ -398,7 +398,7 @@ held.
|
||||||
``struct qstr last``
|
``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.
|
that is the "next" component in the pathname.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
``int last_type``
|
``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
|
variables, then ``read_seqcount_retry()`` is called to confirm the two
|
||||||
are consistent, and only then is ``->d_compare()`` called. When
|
are consistent, and only then is ``->d_compare()`` called. When
|
||||||
standard filename comparison is used, ``dentry_cmp()`` is called
|
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
|
instead has a large comment explaining why the consistency guarantee
|
||||||
isn't necessary. A subsequent ``read_seqcount_retry()`` will be
|
isn't necessary. A subsequent ``read_seqcount_retry()`` will be
|
||||||
sufficient to catch any problem that could occur at this point.
|
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.
|
sedate approach.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The emphasis here is "try quickly and check". It should probably be
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
this whole process is assuming something is safe when in reality it
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue