On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 02:59:58PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:04:53 +1100 > "Tobin C. Harding" <me@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Posting as RFC in the hope that someone knows how to massage sphinx > > correctly to fix this patch. > > > > Currently function kernel-doc contains a multi-line code snippet. This > > is causing sphinx to emit 5 build warnings > > > > WARNING: Unexpected indentation. > > WARNING: Unexpected indentation. > > WARNING: Block quote ends without a blank line; unexpected unindent. > > WARNING: Block quote ends without a blank line; unexpected unindent. > > WARNING: Inline literal start-string without end-string. > > > > And the snippet is not rendering correctly in HTML. > > > > We can stop shpinx complaining by using '::' instead of the currently > > used '``' however this still does not render correctly in HTML. The > > rendering is [arguably] better but still incorrect. Sphinx renders two > > function calls thus: > > > > :c:func:`rcu_read_lock()`; > > > > The rest of the snippet does however have correct spacing. > > The behavior when `` was used is not surprising, that really just does a > font change. Once you went with a literal block (with "::") though, the > situation changes a bit. That really should work. > > I looked a bit. This isn't a sphinx (or "shpinx" :) problem, the bug is > in kernel-doc. Once we go into the literal mode, it shouldn't be > screwing around with the text anymore. Of course, kernel-doc doesn't > understand enough RST to know that. I'm a little nervous about trying to > teach it more, but maybe we have to do that; we should certainly be able > to put code snippets into the docs and have them come through unmolested. > > I'll try to look more closely at that shortly. Meanwhile, this patch > makes things better than the were before. That said... > > > Use '::' to pre-fix code snippet. Clears build warnings but does not > > render correctly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <me@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > To view current broken rendering see > > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/core-api/kernel-api.html?highlight=rcu_pointer_handoff#c.rcu_pointer_handoff > > > > include/linux/rcupdate.h | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h > > index a6ddc42f87a5..cc10e772e3e9 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h > > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h > > @@ -568,7 +568,8 @@ static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void) { } > > * is handed off from RCU to some other synchronization mechanism, for > > * example, reference counting or locking. In C11, it would map to > > * kill_dependency(). It could be used as follows: > > - * `` > > + * :: > > ...rather than adding a separate "::" line, you can just > s/follows:/follows::/ and the Right Thing will happen (to the same extent > that it does now, anyway. Except that it will render as kill_dependency(). It could be used as follows instead of kill_dependency(). It could be used as follows: (note: final colon) Also the diff will be bigger. These two reasons led me to the patch as it is. I'm happy to re-spin with your suggested change though. thanks, Tobin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
