From: Vincent Woltmann <vincent@woltmann.art>
To: rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "Vincent Woltmann" <vincent@woltmann.art>,
"Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@kernel.org>,
"Alex Gaynor" <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,
"Wedson Almeida Filho" <wedsonaf@gmail.com>,
"Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"Gary Guo" <gary@garyguo.net>,
"Björn Roy Baron" <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
"Benno Lossin" <benno.lossin@proton.me>,
"Andreas Hindborg" <a.hindborg@samsung.com>,
"Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@google.com>,
"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Wei Liu" <wei.liu@kernel.org>, "Yuki Okushi" <jtitor@2k36.org>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org (open list:DOCUMENTATION),
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list)
Subject: [PATCH v2] rust: Remove erronous blockquote in coding guidelines
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 20:01:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240816200339.2495875-1-vincent@woltmann.art> (raw)
An unordered list in coding-guidelines.rst was indented, producing
a blockquote around it and making it look more indented than expected.
Remove the indentation to only output an unordered list.
Reported-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Closes: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1063
Fixes: d07479b211b7 ("docs: add Rust documentation")
Signed-off-by: Vincent Woltmann <vincent@woltmann.art>
---
Changes since v1:
- Readded the last paragraph to the list, which was removed because I
deleted too much indentation in v1
Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst | 38 ++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst b/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst
index 05542840b16c..329b070a1d47 100644
--- a/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst
+++ b/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst
@@ -145,32 +145,32 @@ This is how a well-documented Rust function may look like:
This example showcases a few ``rustdoc`` features and some conventions followed
in the kernel:
- - The first paragraph must be a single sentence briefly describing what
- the documented item does. Further explanations must go in extra paragraphs.
+- The first paragraph must be a single sentence briefly describing what
+ the documented item does. Further explanations must go in extra paragraphs.
- - Unsafe functions must document their safety preconditions under
- a ``# Safety`` section.
+- Unsafe functions must document their safety preconditions under
+ a ``# Safety`` section.
- - While not shown here, if a function may panic, the conditions under which
- that happens must be described under a ``# Panics`` section.
+- While not shown here, if a function may panic, the conditions under which
+ that happens must be described under a ``# Panics`` section.
- Please note that panicking should be very rare and used only with a good
- reason. In almost all cases, a fallible approach should be used, typically
- returning a ``Result``.
+ Please note that panicking should be very rare and used only with a good
+ reason. In almost all cases, a fallible approach should be used, typically
+ returning a ``Result``.
- - If providing examples of usage would help readers, they must be written in
- a section called ``# Examples``.
+- If providing examples of usage would help readers, they must be written in
+ a section called ``# Examples``.
- - Rust items (functions, types, constants...) must be linked appropriately
- (``rustdoc`` will create a link automatically).
+- Rust items (functions, types, constants...) must be linked appropriately
+ (``rustdoc`` will create a link automatically).
- - Any ``unsafe`` block must be preceded by a ``// SAFETY:`` comment
- describing why the code inside is sound.
+- Any ``unsafe`` block must be preceded by a ``// SAFETY:`` comment
+ describing why the code inside is sound.
- While sometimes the reason might look trivial and therefore unneeded,
- writing these comments is not just a good way of documenting what has been
- taken into account, but most importantly, it provides a way to know that
- there are no *extra* implicit constraints.
+ While sometimes the reason might look trivial and therefore unneeded,
+ writing these comments is not just a good way of documenting what has been
+ taken into account, but most importantly, it provides a way to know that
+ there are no *extra* implicit constraints.
To learn more about how to write documentation for Rust and extra features,
please take a look at the ``rustdoc`` book at:
--
2.41.0
next reply other threads:[~2024-08-16 20:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-16 20:01 Vincent Woltmann [this message]
2024-08-21 10:52 ` [PATCH v2] rust: Remove erronous blockquote in coding guidelines Miguel Ojeda
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240816200339.2495875-1-vincent@woltmann.art \
--to=vincent@woltmann.art \
--cc=a.hindborg@samsung.com \
--cc=alex.gaynor@gmail.com \
--cc=aliceryhl@google.com \
--cc=benno.lossin@proton.me \
--cc=bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=gary@garyguo.net \
--cc=jtitor@2k36.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
--cc=rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wedsonaf@gmail.com \
--cc=wei.liu@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).