On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 04:19:15PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>
>
> On 2022/11/23 13:32, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After merging the rcu tree, today's linux-next build (htmldocs) produced
> > these warnings:
> >
> > Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst:401: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
> > Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst:428: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
> > Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst:445: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
> > Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst:459: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
> > Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst:468: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
> >
> > Introduced by commit
> >
> > 3d2788ba4573 ("doc: Document CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_CPUTIME=y stall information")
> >
>
> Strange thing, I specially executed make htmldocs before, unexpectedly did not
> find these warnings.
>
> I already know why. The literal block is not indented. I will post a new version to
> Paul E. McKenney. Excuse me for causing trouble to everyone.
>
> For example:
> @@ -398,9 +398,9 @@ In kernels built with CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_CPUTIME=y or booted with
> rcupdate.rcu_cpu_stall_cputime=1, the following additional information
> is supplied with each RCU CPU stall warning::
>
> -rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system
> -rcu: number: 624 45 0
> -rcu: cputime: 69 1 2425 ==> 2500(ms)
> + rcu: hardirqs softirqs csw/system
> + rcu: number: 624 45 0
> + rcu: cputime: 69 1 2425 ==> 2500(ms)
It is probably my fault during my wordsmithing, but I will happily
accept a new patch to replace the current one.
Thanx, Paul
