locking/Documentation: Insert white spaces consistently

The document uses two newlines between sections, one newline between
item and its detailed description, and two spaces between sentences.

There are a few places that used these rules inconsistently - fix them.

Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: bobby.prani@gmail.com
Cc: dipankar@in.ibm.com
Cc: dvhart@linux.intel.com
Cc: edumazet@google.com
Cc: fweisbec@gmail.com
Cc: jiangshanlai@gmail.com
Cc: josh@joshtriplett.org
Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
Cc: oleg@redhat.com
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1460476375-27803-5-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
[ Fixed the changelog. ]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 23 insertions, 20 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 1f1541862239..7133626a61d0 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -1733,15 +1733,15 @@ The Linux kernel has eight basic CPU memory barriers:
 
 
 All memory barriers except the data dependency barriers imply a compiler
-barrier. Data dependencies do not impose any additional compiler ordering.
+barrier.  Data dependencies do not impose any additional compiler ordering.
 
 Aside: In the case of data dependencies, the compiler would be expected
 to issue the loads in the correct order (eg. `a[b]` would have to load
 the value of b before loading a[b]), however there is no guarantee in
 the C specification that the compiler may not speculate the value of b
 (eg. is equal to 1) and load a before b (eg. tmp = a[1]; if (b != 1)
-tmp = a[b]; ). There is also the problem of a compiler reloading b after
-having loaded a[b], thus having a newer copy of b than a[b]. A consensus
+tmp = a[b]; ).  There is also the problem of a compiler reloading b after
+having loaded a[b], thus having a newer copy of b than a[b].  A consensus
 has not yet been reached about these problems, however the READ_ONCE()
 macro is a good place to start looking.
 
@@ -1796,6 +1796,7 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
 
 
  (*) lockless_dereference();
+
      This can be thought of as a pointer-fetch wrapper around the
      smp_read_barrier_depends() data-dependency barrier.
 
@@ -1897,7 +1898,7 @@ for each construct.  These operations all imply certain barriers:
      Memory operations issued before the ACQUIRE may be completed after
      the ACQUIRE operation has completed.  An smp_mb__before_spinlock(),
      combined with a following ACQUIRE, orders prior stores against
-     subsequent loads and stores. Note that this is weaker than smp_mb()!
+     subsequent loads and stores.  Note that this is weaker than smp_mb()!
      The smp_mb__before_spinlock() primitive is free on many architectures.
 
  (2) RELEASE operation implication:
@@ -2092,9 +2093,9 @@ or:
 	event_indicated = 1;
 	wake_up_process(event_daemon);
 
-A write memory barrier is implied by wake_up() and co. if and only if they wake
-something up.  The barrier occurs before the task state is cleared, and so sits
-between the STORE to indicate the event and the STORE to set TASK_RUNNING:
+A write memory barrier is implied by wake_up() and co.  if and only if they
+wake something up.  The barrier occurs before the task state is cleared, and so
+sits between the STORE to indicate the event and the STORE to set TASK_RUNNING:
 
 	CPU 1				CPU 2
 	===============================	===============================
@@ -2208,7 +2209,7 @@ three CPUs; then should the following sequence of events occur:
 
 Then there is no guarantee as to what order CPU 3 will see the accesses to *A
 through *H occur in, other than the constraints imposed by the separate locks
-on the separate CPUs. It might, for example, see:
+on the separate CPUs.  It might, for example, see:
 
 	*E, ACQUIRE M, ACQUIRE Q, *G, *C, *F, *A, *B, RELEASE Q, *D, *H, RELEASE M
 
@@ -2488,9 +2489,9 @@ The following operations are special locking primitives:
 	clear_bit_unlock();
 	__clear_bit_unlock();
 
-These implement ACQUIRE-class and RELEASE-class operations. These should be used in
-preference to other operations when implementing locking primitives, because
-their implementations can be optimised on many architectures.
+These implement ACQUIRE-class and RELEASE-class operations.  These should be
+used in preference to other operations when implementing locking primitives,
+because their implementations can be optimised on many architectures.
 
 [!] Note that special memory barrier primitives are available for these
 situations because on some CPUs the atomic instructions used imply full memory
@@ -2570,12 +2571,12 @@ explicit barriers are used.
 
 Normally this won't be a problem because the I/O accesses done inside such
 sections will include synchronous load operations on strictly ordered I/O
-registers that form implicit I/O barriers. If this isn't sufficient then an
+registers that form implicit I/O barriers.  If this isn't sufficient then an
 mmiowb() may need to be used explicitly.
 
 
 A similar situation may occur between an interrupt routine and two routines
-running on separate CPUs that communicate with each other. If such a case is
+running on separate CPUs that communicate with each other.  If such a case is
 likely, then interrupt-disabling locks should be used to guarantee ordering.
 
 
@@ -2589,8 +2590,8 @@ functions:
  (*) inX(), outX():
 
      These are intended to talk to I/O space rather than memory space, but
-     that's primarily a CPU-specific concept. The i386 and x86_64 processors do
-     indeed have special I/O space access cycles and instructions, but many
+     that's primarily a CPU-specific concept.  The i386 and x86_64 processors
+     do indeed have special I/O space access cycles and instructions, but many
      CPUs don't have such a concept.
 
      The PCI bus, amongst others, defines an I/O space concept which - on such
@@ -2612,7 +2613,7 @@ functions:
 
      Whether these are guaranteed to be fully ordered and uncombined with
      respect to each other on the issuing CPU depends on the characteristics
-     defined for the memory window through which they're accessing. On later
+     defined for the memory window through which they're accessing.  On later
      i386 architecture machines, for example, this is controlled by way of the
      MTRR registers.
 
@@ -2637,10 +2638,10 @@ functions:
  (*) readX_relaxed(), writeX_relaxed()
 
      These are similar to readX() and writeX(), but provide weaker memory
-     ordering guarantees. Specifically, they do not guarantee ordering with
+     ordering guarantees.  Specifically, they do not guarantee ordering with
      respect to normal memory accesses (e.g. DMA buffers) nor do they guarantee
-     ordering with respect to LOCK or UNLOCK operations. If the latter is
-     required, an mmiowb() barrier can be used. Note that relaxed accesses to
+     ordering with respect to LOCK or UNLOCK operations.  If the latter is
+     required, an mmiowb() barrier can be used.  Note that relaxed accesses to
      the same peripheral are guaranteed to be ordered with respect to each
      other.
 
@@ -3042,6 +3043,7 @@ The Alpha defines the Linux kernel's memory barrier model.
 
 See the subsection on "Cache Coherency" above.
 
+
 VIRTUAL MACHINE GUESTS
 ----------------------
 
@@ -3052,7 +3054,7 @@ barriers for this use-case would be possible but is often suboptimal.
 
 To handle this case optimally, low-level virt_mb() etc macros are available.
 These have the same effect as smp_mb() etc when SMP is enabled, but generate
-identical code for SMP and non-SMP systems. For example, virtual machine guests
+identical code for SMP and non-SMP systems.  For example, virtual machine guests
 should use virt_mb() rather than smp_mb() when synchronizing against a
 (possibly SMP) host.
 
@@ -3060,6 +3062,7 @@ These are equivalent to smp_mb() etc counterparts in all other respects,
 in particular, they do not control MMIO effects: to control
 MMIO effects, use mandatory barriers.
 
+
 ============
 EXAMPLE USES
 ============