lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH v4 13/29] Documentation/CodingStyle: use the .. note:: markup where needed
Date
There are two places there where there are notes that should
be highlighted. So, use the ReST note markup for such texts.

Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
---
Documentation/CodingStyle | 14 +++++++++-----
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/CodingStyle b/Documentation/CodingStyle
index 0024c36b8046..7e30da38bb3a 100644
--- a/Documentation/CodingStyle
+++ b/Documentation/CodingStyle
@@ -333,9 +333,11 @@ useful only for:
Example: ``pte_t`` etc. opaque objects that you can only access using
the proper accessor functions.

- NOTE! Opaqueness and ``accessor functions`` are not good in themselves.
- The reason we have them for things like pte_t etc. is that there
- really is absolutely **zero** portably accessible information there.
+ .. note::
+
+ Opaqueness and ``accessor functions`` are not good in themselves.
+ The reason we have them for things like pte_t etc. is that there
+ really is absolutely **zero** portably accessible information there.

(b) Clear integer types, where the abstraction **helps** avoid confusion
whether it is ``int`` or ``long``.
@@ -343,8 +345,10 @@ useful only for:
u8/u16/u32 are perfectly fine typedefs, although they fit into
category (d) better than here.

- NOTE! Again - there needs to be a **reason** for this. If something is
- ``unsigned long``, then there's no reason to do
+ .. note::
+
+ Again - there needs to be a **reason** for this. If something is
+ ``unsigned long``, then there's no reason to do

typedef unsigned long myflags_t;

--
2.7.4

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-19 13:17    [W:0.483 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site