Re: [PATCH 21/36] fs: locks: Fix some troubles at kernel-doc comments

[Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>]

On Fri, 2017-05-12 at 11:00 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> There are a few syntax violations that cause outputs of
> a few comments to not be properly parsed in ReST format.
> 
> No functional changes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
> ---
>  fs/locks.c | 18 ++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index 26811321d39b..bdce708e4251 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -1858,8 +1858,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(generic_setlease);
>   *
>   * Call this to establish a lease on the file. The "lease" argument is not
>   * used for F_UNLCK requests and may be NULL. For commands that set or alter
> - * an existing lease, the (*lease)->fl_lmops->lm_break operation must be set;
> - * if not, this function will return -ENOLCK (and generate a scary-looking
> + * an existing lease, the ``(*lease)->fl_lmops->lm_break`` operation must be
> + * set; if not, this function will return -ENOLCK (and generate a scary-looking
>   * stack trace).
>   *
>   * The "priv" pointer is passed directly to the lm_setup function as-is. It
> @@ -1972,15 +1972,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(locks_lock_inode_wait);
>   *	@cmd: the type of lock to apply.
>   *
>   *	Apply a %FL_FLOCK style lock to an open file descriptor.
> - *	The @cmd can be one of
> + *	The @cmd can be one of:
>   *
> - *	%LOCK_SH -- a shared lock.
> - *
> - *	%LOCK_EX -- an exclusive lock.
> - *
> - *	%LOCK_UN -- remove an existing lock.
> - *
> - *	%LOCK_MAND -- a `mandatory' flock.  This exists to emulate Windows Share Modes.
> + *	- %LOCK_SH -- a shared lock.
> + *	- %LOCK_EX -- an exclusive lock.
> + *	- %LOCK_UN -- remove an existing lock.
> + *	- %LOCK_MAND -- a 'mandatory' flock.
> + *	  This exists to emulate Windows Share Modes.
>   *
>   *	%LOCK_MAND can be combined with %LOCK_READ or %LOCK_WRITE to allow other
>   *	processes read and write access respectively.

LGTM. Do you need me or Bruce to pick this one up?

Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>