[PATCH 02/10] docs: RCU: convert lockdep-splat.txt to ReST

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>]

- Add a SPDX header;
- Add a document title;
- Some whitespace fixes and new line breaks;
- Mark literal blocks as such;
- Add it to RCU/index.rst.

Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
---
 Documentation/RCU/index.rst                   |  1 +
 .../{lockdep-splat.txt => lockdep-splat.rst}  | 99 ++++++++++---------
 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
 rename Documentation/RCU/{lockdep-splat.txt => lockdep-splat.rst} (54%)

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/index.rst b/Documentation/RCU/index.rst
index c1ba4d130bb0..430a37132b2c 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/index.rst
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ RCU concepts
 
    arrayRCU
    checklist
+   lockdep-splat
    rcubarrier
    rcu_dereference
    whatisRCU
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.rst
similarity index 54%
rename from Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt
rename to Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.rst
index b8096316fd11..2a5c79db57dc 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.rst
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+=================
+Lockdep-RCU Splat
+=================
+
 Lockdep-RCU was added to the Linux kernel in early 2010
 (http://lwn.net/Articles/371986/).  This facility checks for some common
 misuses of the RCU API, most notably using one of the rcu_dereference()
@@ -12,55 +18,54 @@ overwriting or worse.  There can of course be false positives, this
 being the real world and all that.
 
 So let's look at an example RCU lockdep splat from 3.0-rc5, one that
-has long since been fixed:
+has long since been fixed::
 
-=============================
-WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
------------------------------
-block/cfq-iosched.c:2776 suspicious rcu_dereference_protected() usage!
+    =============================
+    WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
+    -----------------------------
+    block/cfq-iosched.c:2776 suspicious rcu_dereference_protected() usage!
 
-other info that might help us debug this:
+other info that might help us debug this::
 
+    rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
+    3 locks held by scsi_scan_6/1552:
+    #0:  (&shost->scan_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8145efca>]
+    scsi_scan_host_selected+0x5a/0x150
+    #1:  (&eq->sysfs_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff812a5032>]
+    elevator_exit+0x22/0x60
+    #2:  (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff812b6233>]
+    cfq_exit_queue+0x43/0x190
 
-rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
-3 locks held by scsi_scan_6/1552:
- #0:  (&shost->scan_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8145efca>]
-scsi_scan_host_selected+0x5a/0x150
- #1:  (&eq->sysfs_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff812a5032>]
-elevator_exit+0x22/0x60
- #2:  (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff812b6233>]
-cfq_exit_queue+0x43/0x190
+    stack backtrace:
+    Pid: 1552, comm: scsi_scan_6 Not tainted 3.0.0-rc5 #17
+    Call Trace:
+    [<ffffffff810abb9b>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0xbb/0xc0
+    [<ffffffff812b6139>] __cfq_exit_single_io_context+0xe9/0x120
+    [<ffffffff812b626c>] cfq_exit_queue+0x7c/0x190
+    [<ffffffff812a5046>] elevator_exit+0x36/0x60
+    [<ffffffff812a802a>] blk_cleanup_queue+0x4a/0x60
+    [<ffffffff8145cc09>] scsi_free_queue+0x9/0x10
+    [<ffffffff81460944>] __scsi_remove_device+0x84/0xd0
+    [<ffffffff8145dca3>] scsi_probe_and_add_lun+0x353/0xb10
+    [<ffffffff817da069>] ? error_exit+0x29/0xb0
+    [<ffffffff817d98ed>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3d/0x80
+    [<ffffffff8145e722>] __scsi_scan_target+0x112/0x680
+    [<ffffffff812c690d>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_thunk+0x3a/0x3c
+    [<ffffffff817da069>] ? error_exit+0x29/0xb0
+    [<ffffffff812bcc60>] ? kobject_del+0x40/0x40
+    [<ffffffff8145ed16>] scsi_scan_channel+0x86/0xb0
+    [<ffffffff8145f0b0>] scsi_scan_host_selected+0x140/0x150
+    [<ffffffff8145f149>] do_scsi_scan_host+0x89/0x90
+    [<ffffffff8145f170>] do_scan_async+0x20/0x160
+    [<ffffffff8145f150>] ? do_scsi_scan_host+0x90/0x90
+    [<ffffffff810975b6>] kthread+0xa6/0xb0
+    [<ffffffff817db154>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
+    [<ffffffff81066430>] ? finish_task_switch+0x80/0x110
+    [<ffffffff817d9c04>] ? retint_restore_args+0xe/0xe
+    [<ffffffff81097510>] ? __kthread_init_worker+0x70/0x70
+    [<ffffffff817db150>] ? gs_change+0xb/0xb
 
-stack backtrace:
-Pid: 1552, comm: scsi_scan_6 Not tainted 3.0.0-rc5 #17
-Call Trace:
- [<ffffffff810abb9b>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0xbb/0xc0
- [<ffffffff812b6139>] __cfq_exit_single_io_context+0xe9/0x120
- [<ffffffff812b626c>] cfq_exit_queue+0x7c/0x190
- [<ffffffff812a5046>] elevator_exit+0x36/0x60
- [<ffffffff812a802a>] blk_cleanup_queue+0x4a/0x60
- [<ffffffff8145cc09>] scsi_free_queue+0x9/0x10
- [<ffffffff81460944>] __scsi_remove_device+0x84/0xd0
- [<ffffffff8145dca3>] scsi_probe_and_add_lun+0x353/0xb10
- [<ffffffff817da069>] ? error_exit+0x29/0xb0
- [<ffffffff817d98ed>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3d/0x80
- [<ffffffff8145e722>] __scsi_scan_target+0x112/0x680
- [<ffffffff812c690d>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_thunk+0x3a/0x3c
- [<ffffffff817da069>] ? error_exit+0x29/0xb0
- [<ffffffff812bcc60>] ? kobject_del+0x40/0x40
- [<ffffffff8145ed16>] scsi_scan_channel+0x86/0xb0
- [<ffffffff8145f0b0>] scsi_scan_host_selected+0x140/0x150
- [<ffffffff8145f149>] do_scsi_scan_host+0x89/0x90
- [<ffffffff8145f170>] do_scan_async+0x20/0x160
- [<ffffffff8145f150>] ? do_scsi_scan_host+0x90/0x90
- [<ffffffff810975b6>] kthread+0xa6/0xb0
- [<ffffffff817db154>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
- [<ffffffff81066430>] ? finish_task_switch+0x80/0x110
- [<ffffffff817d9c04>] ? retint_restore_args+0xe/0xe
- [<ffffffff81097510>] ? __kthread_init_worker+0x70/0x70
- [<ffffffff817db150>] ? gs_change+0xb/0xb
-
-Line 2776 of block/cfq-iosched.c in v3.0-rc5 is as follows:
+Line 2776 of block/cfq-iosched.c in v3.0-rc5 is as follows::
 
 	if (rcu_dereference(ioc->ioc_data) == cic) {
 
@@ -70,7 +75,7 @@ case.  Instead, we hold three locks, one of which might be RCU related.
 And maybe that lock really does protect this reference.  If so, the fix
 is to inform RCU, perhaps by changing __cfq_exit_single_io_context() to
 take the struct request_queue "q" from cfq_exit_queue() as an argument,
-which would permit us to invoke rcu_dereference_protected as follows:
+which would permit us to invoke rcu_dereference_protected as follows::
 
 	if (rcu_dereference_protected(ioc->ioc_data,
 				      lockdep_is_held(&q->queue_lock)) == cic) {
@@ -85,7 +90,7 @@ On the other hand, perhaps we really do need an RCU read-side critical
 section.  In this case, the critical section must span the use of the
 return value from rcu_dereference(), or at least until there is some
 reference count incremented or some such.  One way to handle this is to
-add rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() as follows:
+add rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() as follows::
 
 	rcu_read_lock();
 	if (rcu_dereference(ioc->ioc_data) == cic) {
@@ -102,7 +107,7 @@ above lockdep-RCU splat.
 But in this particular case, we don't actually dereference the pointer
 returned from rcu_dereference().  Instead, that pointer is just compared
 to the cic pointer, which means that the rcu_dereference() can be replaced
-by rcu_access_pointer() as follows:
+by rcu_access_pointer() as follows::
 
 	if (rcu_access_pointer(ioc->ioc_data) == cic) {
 
-- 
2.25.2