Commit 286b7e24 authored by Vegard Nossum's avatar Vegard Nossum Committed by Jonathan Corbet
Browse files

docs: path-lookup: markup fixes for emphasis 



Underscores were being used for emphasis, but these are rendered verbatim
in HTML output. reStructuredText uses asterisks for emphasis. I *think* I
caught all of them.

Signed-off-by: default avatarVegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200727121525.28103-2-vegard.nossum@oracle.com


Signed-off-by: default avatarJonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
parent 87b92d4b

Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst

+4 −4
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ happened to be looking at a dentry that was moved in this way, 
it might end up continuing the search down the wrong chain,

and so miss out on part of the correct chain.



The name-lookup process (``d_lookup()``) does _not_ try to prevent this

The name-lookup process (``d_lookup()``) does *not* try to prevent this

from happening, but only to detect when it happens.

``rename_lock`` is a seqlock that is updated whenever any dentry is

renamed.  If ``d_lookup`` finds that a rename happened while it
@@ -398,7 +398,7 @@ held. 
``struct qstr last``

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



This is a string together with a length (i.e. _not_ ``nul`` terminated)

This is a string together with a length (i.e. *not* ``nul`` terminated)

that is the "next" component in the pathname.



``int last_type``
@@ -720,7 +720,7 @@ against a dentry. The length and name pointer are copied into local 
variables, then ``read_seqcount_retry()`` is called to confirm the two

are consistent, and only then is ``->d_compare()`` called.  When

standard filename comparison is used, ``dentry_cmp()`` is called

instead.  Notably it does _not_ use ``read_seqcount_retry()``, but

instead.  Notably it does *not* use ``read_seqcount_retry()``, but

instead has a large comment explaining why the consistency guarantee

isn't necessary.  A subsequent ``read_seqcount_retry()`` will be

sufficient to catch any problem that could occur at this point.
@@ -928,7 +928,7 @@ if anything goes wrong it is much safer to just abort and try a more 
sedate approach.



The emphasis here is "try quickly and check".  It should probably be

"try quickly _and carefully,_ then check".  The fact that checking is

"try quickly *and carefully*, then check".  The fact that checking is

needed is a reminder that the system is dynamic and only a limited

number of things are safe at all.  The most likely cause of errors in

this whole process is assuming something is safe when in reality it