Re: [PATCH v3] doc: Fix htmldocs build warnings of stallwarn.rst

[Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5205 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 02:22:03PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst:
> 401: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
> 428: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
> 445: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
> 459: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
> 468: WARNING: Literal block expected; none found.
> 
> The literal block need to be indented, so add two spaces to each line.
> 

What about following patch description below instead?

```
When merging rcu tree for linux-next, Stephen Rothwell reported htmldocs
warnings:

<warnings>...

These are due to unindented literal blocks. Indent them to fix these
warnings.
```

> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst
> index c1e92dfef40d501..ca7b7cd806a16c9 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst
> @@ -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)
>  

OK.
 
> -The sampling period is shown as follows:
> -:<------------first timeout---------->:<-----second timeout----->:
> -:<--half timeout-->:<--half timeout-->:                          :
> -:                  :<--first period-->:                          :
> -:                  :<-----------second sampling period---------->:
> -:                  :                  :                          :
> -:          snapshot time point    1st-stall                  2nd-stall
> +The sampling period is shown as follows::
>  
> +  |<------------first timeout---------->|<-----second timeout----->|
> +  |<--half timeout-->|<--half timeout-->|                          |
> +  |                  |<--first period-->|                          |
> +  |                  |<-----------second sampling period---------->|
> +  |                  |                  |                          |
> +             snapshot time point    1st-stall                  2nd-stall
>  

OK.

>  The following describes four typical scenarios:
>  
> -1. A CPU looping with interrupts disabled.::
> +1. A CPU looping with interrupts disabled.
>  
> -   rcu:          hardirqs   softirqs   csw/system
> -   rcu:  number:        0          0            0
> -   rcu: cputime:        0          0            0   ==> 2500(ms)
> +   ::
> +
> +     rcu:          hardirqs   softirqs   csw/system
> +     rcu:  number:        0          0            0
> +     rcu: cputime:        0          0            0   ==> 2500(ms)

OK.

>     This is similar to the previous example, but with non-zero number of
>     and CPU time consumed by hard interrupts, along with non-zero CPU
> -   time consumed by in-kernel execution.::
> +   time consumed by in-kernel execution::
>  
> -   rcu:          hardirqs   softirqs   csw/system
> -   rcu:  number:      624          0            0
> -   rcu: cputime:       49          0         2446   ==> 2500(ms)
> +     rcu:          hardirqs   softirqs   csw/system
> +     rcu:  number:      624          0            0
> +     rcu: cputime:       49          0         2446   ==> 2500(ms)

OK.

>  
>  3. A CPU looping with preemption disabled.
>  
> -   Here, only the number of context switches is zero.::
> +   Here, only the number of context switches is zero::
>  
> -   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)

OK.

>  
>     This situation hints that the stalled CPU was looping with preemption
>     disabled.
>  
> -4. No looping, but massive hard and soft interrupts.::
> +4. No looping, but massive hard and soft interrupts.
> +
> +   ::

No, no that way. For consistency, the item sentence should also be end with
double colon marker:

---- >8 ----

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst
index ca7b7cd806a16c..056127ef2b8e7e 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/stallwarn.rst
@@ -465,9 +465,7 @@ The following describes four typical scenarios:
    This situation hints that the stalled CPU was looping with preemption
    disabled.
 
-4. No looping, but massive hard and soft interrupts.
-
-   ::
+4. No looping, but massive hard and soft interrupts::
 
      rcu:          hardirqs   softirqs   csw/system
      rcu:  number:       xx         xx            0

Thanks. 

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]