docs: path-lookup: markup fixes for emphasis
Underscores were being used for emphasis, but these are rendered verbatim
in HTML output. reStructuredText uses asterisks for emphasis. I *think* I
caught all of them.
Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200727121525.28103-2-vegard.nossum@oracle.com
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
index 3f79071..c482e16 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@
it might end up continuing the search down the wrong chain,
and so miss out on part of the correct chain.
-The name-lookup process (``d_lookup()``) does _not_ try to prevent this
+The name-lookup process (``d_lookup()``) does *not* try to prevent this
from happening, but only to detect when it happens.
``rename_lock`` is a seqlock that is updated whenever any dentry is
renamed. If ``d_lookup`` finds that a rename happened while it
@@ -398,7 +398,7 @@
``struct qstr last``
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-This is a string together with a length (i.e. _not_ ``nul`` terminated)
+This is a string together with a length (i.e. *not* ``nul`` terminated)
that is the "next" component in the pathname.
``int last_type``
@@ -720,7 +720,7 @@
variables, then ``read_seqcount_retry()`` is called to confirm the two
are consistent, and only then is ``->d_compare()`` called. When
standard filename comparison is used, ``dentry_cmp()`` is called
-instead. Notably it does _not_ use ``read_seqcount_retry()``, but
+instead. Notably it does *not* use ``read_seqcount_retry()``, but
instead has a large comment explaining why the consistency guarantee
isn't necessary. A subsequent ``read_seqcount_retry()`` will be
sufficient to catch any problem that could occur at this point.
@@ -928,7 +928,7 @@
sedate approach.
The emphasis here is "try quickly and check". It should probably be
-"try quickly _and carefully,_ then check". The fact that checking is
+"try quickly *and carefully*, then check". The fact that checking is
needed is a reminder that the system is dynamic and only a limited
number of things are safe at all. The most likely cause of errors in
this whole process is assuming something is safe when in reality it
