Re: [PATCH RFC 06/12] Documentation: KVM: Have actual headings for exceptions

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Inconsistent manual section numbering format in the new headings.
--

commit b82f506fe0814e93c74474bdc07d0928237e5af1
Author: Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@google.com>

Documentation: KVM: Have actual headings for exceptions

This commit updates the KVM locking documentation by adding explicit
headings for the exception sections. This improves readability by clearly
delineating where each exception description ends.

> diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst
> index 5161636cec481..fc4537a7659a9 100644
> --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst
> @@ -65,7 +65,8 @@ The general rule in KVM is that any modification to shadow page tables
>  (and their entries (SPTEs)) must be protected by ``kvm->mmu_lock``,
>  with the exceptions described below.
>  
> -Fast page fault:
> +2.1. Fast page fault
> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Severity: Low]
This isn't a bug, but there is an inconsistency in the numbering format
between the new headings. This heading uses a trailing period after the
section number ("2.1. ").

[ ... ]

> @@ -217,7 +218,8 @@ Since the spte is "volatile" if it can be updated out of mmu-lock, we always
>  atomically update the spte and the race caused by fast page fault can be avoided.
>  See the comments in spte_needs_atomic_update() and mmu_spte_update().
>  
> -Lockless Access Tracking:
> +2.2 Lockless Access Tracking
> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

However, this heading omits the trailing period ("2.2 ").

Could this be made consistent across the document? A later patch in the
series continues the convention of omitting the trailing period (e.g.,
"4.1 Overview").

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260527-kvm-locking-docs-v1-0-4fe8b602ff47@google.com?part=6