Merge tag 'standardize-docs' of git://git.lwn.net/linux

Pull documentation format standardization from Jonathan Corbet:
 "This series converts a number of top-level documents to the RST format
  without incorporating them into the Sphinx tree. The hope is to bring
  some uniformity to kernel documentation and, perhaps more importantly,
  have our existing docs serve as an example of the desired formatting
  for those that will be added later.

  Mauro has gone through and fixed up a lot of top-level documentation
  files to make them conform to the RST format, but without moving or
  renaming them in any way. This will help when we incorporate the ones
  we want to keep into the Sphinx doctree, but the real purpose is to
  bring a bit of uniformity to our documentation and let the top-level
  docs serve as examples for those writing new ones"

* tag 'standardize-docs' of git://git.lwn.net/linux: (84 commits)
  docs: kprobes.txt: Fix whitespacing
  tee.txt: standardize document format
  cgroup-v2.txt: standardize document format
  dell_rbu.txt: standardize document format
  zorro.txt: standardize document format
  xz.txt: standardize document format
  xillybus.txt: standardize document format
  vfio.txt: standardize document format
  vfio-mediated-device.txt: standardize document format
  unaligned-memory-access.txt: standardize document format
  this_cpu_ops.txt: standardize document format
  svga.txt: standardize document format
  static-keys.txt: standardize document format
  smsc_ece1099.txt: standardize document format
  SM501.txt: standardize document format
  siphash.txt: standardize document format
  sgi-ioc4.txt: standardize document format
  SAK.txt: standardize document format
  rpmsg.txt: standardize document format
  robust-futexes.txt: standardize document format
  ...

1 files changed, 155 insertions, 140 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/kref.txt b/Documentation/kref.txt
index d26a27ca964d..3af384156d7e 100644
--- a/Documentation/kref.txt
+++ b/Documentation/kref.txt
@@ -1,24 +1,42 @@
+===================================================
+Adding reference counters (krefs) to kernel objects
+===================================================
+
+:Author: Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org>
+:Author: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
+
+A lot of this was lifted from Greg Kroah-Hartman's 2004 OLS paper and
+presentation on krefs, which can be found at:
+
+  - http://www.kroah.com/linux/talks/ols_2004_kref_paper/Reprint-Kroah-Hartman-OLS2004.pdf
+  - http://www.kroah.com/linux/talks/ols_2004_kref_talk/
+
+Introduction
+============
 
 krefs allow you to add reference counters to your objects.  If you
 have objects that are used in multiple places and passed around, and
 you don't have refcounts, your code is almost certainly broken.  If
 you want refcounts, krefs are the way to go.
 
-To use a kref, add one to your data structures like:
+To use a kref, add one to your data structures like::
 
-struct my_data
-{
+    struct my_data
+    {
 	.
 	.
 	struct kref refcount;
 	.
 	.
-};
+    };
 
 The kref can occur anywhere within the data structure.
 
+Initialization
+==============
+
 You must initialize the kref after you allocate it.  To do this, call
-kref_init as so:
+kref_init as so::
 
      struct my_data *data;
 
@@ -29,18 +47,25 @@ kref_init as so:
 
 This sets the refcount in the kref to 1.
 
+Kref rules
+==========
+
 Once you have an initialized kref, you must follow the following
 rules:
 
 1) If you make a non-temporary copy of a pointer, especially if
    it can be passed to another thread of execution, you must
-   increment the refcount with kref_get() before passing it off:
+   increment the refcount with kref_get() before passing it off::
+
        kref_get(&data->refcount);
+
    If you already have a valid pointer to a kref-ed structure (the
    refcount cannot go to zero) you may do this without a lock.
 
-2) When you are done with a pointer, you must call kref_put():
+2) When you are done with a pointer, you must call kref_put()::
+
        kref_put(&data->refcount, data_release);
+
    If this is the last reference to the pointer, the release
    routine will be called.  If the code never tries to get
    a valid pointer to a kref-ed structure without already
@@ -53,25 +78,25 @@ rules:
    structure must remain valid during the kref_get().
 
 For example, if you allocate some data and then pass it to another
-thread to process:
+thread to process::
 
-void data_release(struct kref *ref)
-{
+    void data_release(struct kref *ref)
+    {
 	struct my_data *data = container_of(ref, struct my_data, refcount);
 	kfree(data);
-}
+    }
 
-void more_data_handling(void *cb_data)
-{
+    void more_data_handling(void *cb_data)
+    {
 	struct my_data *data = cb_data;
 	.
 	. do stuff with data here
 	.
 	kref_put(&data->refcount, data_release);
-}
+    }
 
-int my_data_handler(void)
-{
+    int my_data_handler(void)
+    {
 	int rv = 0;
 	struct my_data *data;
 	struct task_struct *task;
@@ -91,10 +116,10 @@ int my_data_handler(void)
 	.
 	. do stuff with data here
 	.
- out:
+    out:
 	kref_put(&data->refcount, data_release);
 	return rv;
-}
+    }
 
 This way, it doesn't matter what order the two threads handle the
 data, the kref_put() handles knowing when the data is not referenced
@@ -104,7 +129,7 @@ put needs no lock because nothing tries to get the data without
 already holding a pointer.
 
 Note that the "before" in rule 1 is very important.  You should never
-do something like:
+do something like::
 
 	task = kthread_run(more_data_handling, data, "more_data_handling");
 	if (task == ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM)) {
@@ -124,14 +149,14 @@ bad style.  Don't do it.
 There are some situations where you can optimize the gets and puts.
 For instance, if you are done with an object and enqueuing it for
 something else or passing it off to something else, there is no reason
-to do a get then a put:
+to do a get then a put::
 
 	/* Silly extra get and put */
 	kref_get(&obj->ref);
 	enqueue(obj);
 	kref_put(&obj->ref, obj_cleanup);
 
-Just do the enqueue.  A comment about this is always welcome:
+Just do the enqueue.  A comment about this is always welcome::
 
 	enqueue(obj);
 	/* We are done with obj, so we pass our refcount off
@@ -142,109 +167,99 @@ instance, you have a list of items that are each kref-ed, and you wish
 to get the first one.  You can't just pull the first item off the list
 and kref_get() it.  That violates rule 3 because you are not already
 holding a valid pointer.  You must add a mutex (or some other lock).
-For instance:
-
-static DEFINE_MUTEX(mutex);
-static LIST_HEAD(q);
-struct my_data
-{
-	struct kref      refcount;
-	struct list_head link;
-};
-
-static struct my_data *get_entry()
-{
-	struct my_data *entry = NULL;
-	mutex_lock(&mutex);
-	if (!list_empty(&q)) {
-		entry = container_of(q.next, struct my_data, link);
-		kref_get(&entry->refcount);
+For instance::
+
+	static DEFINE_MUTEX(mutex);
+	static LIST_HEAD(q);
+	struct my_data
+	{
+		struct kref      refcount;
+		struct list_head link;
+	};
+
+	static struct my_data *get_entry()
+	{
+		struct my_data *entry = NULL;
+		mutex_lock(&mutex);
+		if (!list_empty(&q)) {
+			entry = container_of(q.next, struct my_data, link);
+			kref_get(&entry->refcount);
+		}
+		mutex_unlock(&mutex);
+		return entry;
 	}
-	mutex_unlock(&mutex);
-	return entry;
-}
 
-static void release_entry(struct kref *ref)
-{
-	struct my_data *entry = container_of(ref, struct my_data, refcount);
+	static void release_entry(struct kref *ref)
+	{
+		struct my_data *entry = container_of(ref, struct my_data, refcount);
 
-	list_del(&entry->link);
-	kfree(entry);
-}
+		list_del(&entry->link);
+		kfree(entry);
+	}
 
-static void put_entry(struct my_data *entry)
-{
-	mutex_lock(&mutex);
-	kref_put(&entry->refcount, release_entry);
-	mutex_unlock(&mutex);
-}
+	static void put_entry(struct my_data *entry)
+	{
+		mutex_lock(&mutex);
+		kref_put(&entry->refcount, release_entry);
+		mutex_unlock(&mutex);
+	}
 
 The kref_put() return value is useful if you do not want to hold the
 lock during the whole release operation.  Say you didn't want to call
 kfree() with the lock held in the example above (since it is kind of
-pointless to do so).  You could use kref_put() as follows:
+pointless to do so).  You could use kref_put() as follows::
 
-static void release_entry(struct kref *ref)
-{
-	/* All work is done after the return from kref_put(). */
-}
+	static void release_entry(struct kref *ref)
+	{
+		/* All work is done after the return from kref_put(). */
+	}
 
-static void put_entry(struct my_data *entry)
-{
-	mutex_lock(&mutex);
-	if (kref_put(&entry->refcount, release_entry)) {
-		list_del(&entry->link);
-		mutex_unlock(&mutex);
-		kfree(entry);
-	} else
-		mutex_unlock(&mutex);
-}
+	static void put_entry(struct my_data *entry)
+	{
+		mutex_lock(&mutex);
+		if (kref_put(&entry->refcount, release_entry)) {
+			list_del(&entry->link);
+			mutex_unlock(&mutex);
+			kfree(entry);
+		} else
+			mutex_unlock(&mutex);
+	}
 
 This is really more useful if you have to call other routines as part
 of the free operations that could take a long time or might claim the
 same lock.  Note that doing everything in the release routine is still
 preferred as it is a little neater.
 
-
-Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org>
-
-A lot of this was lifted from Greg Kroah-Hartman's 2004 OLS paper and
-presentation on krefs, which can be found at:
-  http://www.kroah.com/linux/talks/ols_2004_kref_paper/Reprint-Kroah-Hartman-OLS2004.pdf
-and:
-  http://www.kroah.com/linux/talks/ols_2004_kref_talk/
-
-
 The above example could also be optimized using kref_get_unless_zero() in
-the following way:
-
-static struct my_data *get_entry()
-{
-	struct my_data *entry = NULL;
-	mutex_lock(&mutex);
-	if (!list_empty(&q)) {
-		entry = container_of(q.next, struct my_data, link);
-		if (!kref_get_unless_zero(&entry->refcount))
-			entry = NULL;
+the following way::
+
+	static struct my_data *get_entry()
+	{
+		struct my_data *entry = NULL;
+		mutex_lock(&mutex);
+		if (!list_empty(&q)) {
+			entry = container_of(q.next, struct my_data, link);
+			if (!kref_get_unless_zero(&entry->refcount))
+				entry = NULL;
+		}
+		mutex_unlock(&mutex);
+		return entry;
 	}
-	mutex_unlock(&mutex);
-	return entry;
-}
 
-static void release_entry(struct kref *ref)
-{
-	struct my_data *entry = container_of(ref, struct my_data, refcount);
+	static void release_entry(struct kref *ref)
+	{
+		struct my_data *entry = container_of(ref, struct my_data, refcount);
 
-	mutex_lock(&mutex);
-	list_del(&entry->link);
-	mutex_unlock(&mutex);
-	kfree(entry);
-}
+		mutex_lock(&mutex);
+		list_del(&entry->link);
+		mutex_unlock(&mutex);
+		kfree(entry);
+	}
 
-static void put_entry(struct my_data *entry)
-{
-	kref_put(&entry->refcount, release_entry);
-}
+	static void put_entry(struct my_data *entry)
+	{
+		kref_put(&entry->refcount, release_entry);
+	}
 
 Which is useful to remove the mutex lock around kref_put() in put_entry(), but
 it's important that kref_get_unless_zero is enclosed in the same critical
@@ -254,51 +269,51 @@ Note that it is illegal to use kref_get_unless_zero without checking its
 return value. If you are sure (by already having a valid pointer) that
 kref_get_unless_zero() will return true, then use kref_get() instead.
 
-The function kref_get_unless_zero also makes it possible to use rcu
-locking for lookups in the above example:
+Krefs and RCU
+=============
 
-struct my_data
-{
-	struct rcu_head rhead;
-	.
-	struct kref refcount;
-	.
-	.
-};
-
-static struct my_data *get_entry_rcu()
-{
-	struct my_data *entry = NULL;
-	rcu_read_lock();
-	if (!list_empty(&q)) {
-		entry = container_of(q.next, struct my_data, link);
-		if (!kref_get_unless_zero(&entry->refcount))
-			entry = NULL;
+The function kref_get_unless_zero also makes it possible to use rcu
+locking for lookups in the above example::
+
+	struct my_data
+	{
+		struct rcu_head rhead;
+		.
+		struct kref refcount;
+		.
+		.
+	};
+
+	static struct my_data *get_entry_rcu()
+	{
+		struct my_data *entry = NULL;
+		rcu_read_lock();
+		if (!list_empty(&q)) {
+			entry = container_of(q.next, struct my_data, link);
+			if (!kref_get_unless_zero(&entry->refcount))
+				entry = NULL;
+		}
+		rcu_read_unlock();
+		return entry;
 	}
-	rcu_read_unlock();
-	return entry;
-}
 
-static void release_entry_rcu(struct kref *ref)
-{
-	struct my_data *entry = container_of(ref, struct my_data, refcount);
+	static void release_entry_rcu(struct kref *ref)
+	{
+		struct my_data *entry = container_of(ref, struct my_data, refcount);
 
-	mutex_lock(&mutex);
-	list_del_rcu(&entry->link);
-	mutex_unlock(&mutex);
-	kfree_rcu(entry, rhead);
-}
+		mutex_lock(&mutex);
+		list_del_rcu(&entry->link);
+		mutex_unlock(&mutex);
+		kfree_rcu(entry, rhead);
+	}
 
-static void put_entry(struct my_data *entry)
-{
-	kref_put(&entry->refcount, release_entry_rcu);
-}
+	static void put_entry(struct my_data *entry)
+	{
+		kref_put(&entry->refcount, release_entry_rcu);
+	}
 
 But note that the struct kref member needs to remain in valid memory for a
 rcu grace period after release_entry_rcu was called. That can be accomplished
 by using kfree_rcu(entry, rhead) as done above, or by calling synchronize_rcu()
 before using kfree, but note that synchronize_rcu() may sleep for a
 substantial amount of time.
-
-
-Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>