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@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst index 23602547b8edb..115b9340916e5 100644 --- a/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst @@ -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 -- 2.16.1.72.g5be1f00a9.dirty
