From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 17:55:08 +0200
Subject: seqlock: Properly format kernel-doc code samples
Patch-mainline: v5.9-rc1
Git-commit: 15cbe67bbd3adeb4854c42713dbeaf2ff876beee
References: bsc#1176564 bsc#1162702

Align the code samples and note sections inside kernel-doc comments with
tabs. This way they can be properly parsed and rendered by Sphinx. It
also makes the code samples easier to read from text editors.

Signed-off-by: Ahmed S. Darwish <a.darwish@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200720155530.1173732-3-a.darwish@linutronix.de
Acked-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
---
 include/linux/seqlock.h |  110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)

--- a/include/linux/seqlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/seqlock.h
@@ -241,32 +241,32 @@ static inline void raw_write_seqcount_en
  * atomically, avoiding compiler optimizations; b) to document which writes are
  * meant to propagate to the reader critical section. This is necessary because
  * neither writes before and after the barrier are enclosed in a seq-writer
- * critical section that would ensure readers are aware of ongoing writes.
+ * critical section that would ensure readers are aware of ongoing writes::
  *
- *      seqcount_t seq;
- *      bool X = true, Y = false;
+ *	seqcount_t seq;
+ *	bool X = true, Y = false;
  *
- *      void read(void)
- *      {
- *              bool x, y;
+ *	void read(void)
+ *	{
+ *		bool x, y;
  *
- *              do {
- *                      int s = read_seqcount_begin(&seq);
+ *		do {
+ *			int s = read_seqcount_begin(&seq);
  *
- *                      x = X; y = Y;
+ *			x = X; y = Y;
  *
- *              } while (read_seqcount_retry(&seq, s));
+ *		} while (read_seqcount_retry(&seq, s));
  *
- *              BUG_ON(!x && !y);
+ *		BUG_ON(!x && !y);
  *      }
  *
  *      void write(void)
  *      {
- *              WRITE_ONCE(Y, true);
+ *		WRITE_ONCE(Y, true);
  *
- *              raw_write_seqcount_barrier(seq);
+ *		raw_write_seqcount_barrier(seq);
  *
- *              WRITE_ONCE(X, false);
+ *		WRITE_ONCE(X, false);
  *      }
  */
 static inline void raw_write_seqcount_barrier(seqcount_t *s)
@@ -301,64 +301,68 @@ static inline int raw_read_seqcount_latc
  * Very simply put: we first modify one copy and then the other. This ensures
  * there is always one copy in a stable state, ready to give us an answer.
  *
- * The basic form is a data structure like:
+ * The basic form is a data structure like::
  *
- * struct latch_struct {
- *	seqcount_t		seq;
- *	struct data_struct	data[2];
- * };
+ *	struct latch_struct {
+ *		seqcount_t		seq;
+ *		struct data_struct	data[2];
+ *	};
  *
  * Where a modification, which is assumed to be externally serialized, does the
- * following:
+ * following::
  *
- * void latch_modify(struct latch_struct *latch, ...)
- * {
- *	smp_wmb();	<- Ensure that the last data[1] update is visible
- *	latch->seq++;
- *	smp_wmb();	<- Ensure that the seqcount update is visible
+ *	void latch_modify(struct latch_struct *latch, ...)
+ *	{
+ *		smp_wmb();	// Ensure that the last data[1] update is visible
+ *		latch->seq++;
+ *		smp_wmb();	// Ensure that the seqcount update is visible
  *
- *	modify(latch->data[0], ...);
+ *		modify(latch->data[0], ...);
  *
- *	smp_wmb();	<- Ensure that the data[0] update is visible
- *	latch->seq++;
- *	smp_wmb();	<- Ensure that the seqcount update is visible
+ *		smp_wmb();	// Ensure that the data[0] update is visible
+ *		latch->seq++;
+ *		smp_wmb();	// Ensure that the seqcount update is visible
  *
- *	modify(latch->data[1], ...);
- * }
+ *		modify(latch->data[1], ...);
+ *	}
  *
- * The query will have a form like:
+ * The query will have a form like::
  *
- * struct entry *latch_query(struct latch_struct *latch, ...)
- * {
- *	struct entry *entry;
- *	unsigned seq, idx;
+ *	struct entry *latch_query(struct latch_struct *latch, ...)
+ *	{
+ *		struct entry *entry;
+ *		unsigned seq, idx;
  *
- *	do {
- *		seq = raw_read_seqcount_latch(&latch->seq);
+ *		do {
+ *			seq = raw_read_seqcount_latch(&latch->seq);
  *
- *		idx = seq & 0x01;
- *		entry = data_query(latch->data[idx], ...);
+ *			idx = seq & 0x01;
+ *			entry = data_query(latch->data[idx], ...);
  *
- *		smp_rmb();
- *	} while (seq != latch->seq);
+ *			smp_rmb();
+ *		} while (seq != latch->seq);
  *
- *	return entry;
- * }
+ *		return entry;
+ *	}
  *
  * So during the modification, queries are first redirected to data[1]. Then we
  * modify data[0]. When that is complete, we redirect queries back to data[0]
  * and we can modify data[1].
  *
- * NOTE: The non-requirement for atomic modifications does _NOT_ include
- *       the publishing of new entries in the case where data is a dynamic
- *       data structure.
- *
- *       An iteration might start in data[0] and get suspended long enough
- *       to miss an entire modification sequence, once it resumes it might
- *       observe the new entry.
+ * NOTE:
+ *
+ *	The non-requirement for atomic modifications does _NOT_ include
+ *	the publishing of new entries in the case where data is a dynamic
+ *	data structure.
+ *
+ *	An iteration might start in data[0] and get suspended long enough
+ *	to miss an entire modification sequence, once it resumes it might
+ *	observe the new entry.
+ *
+ * NOTE:
  *
- * NOTE: When data is a dynamic data structure; one should use regular RCU
- *       patterns to manage the lifetimes of the objects within.
+ *	When data is a dynamic data structure; one should use regular RCU
+ *	patterns to manage the lifetimes of the objects within.
  */
 static inline void raw_write_seqcount_latch(seqcount_t *s)
 {