summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst8
1 files changed, 4 insertions, 4 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
index 3f79071cff21..c482e1619e77 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ happened to be looking at a dentry that was moved in this way,
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 @@ held.
``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 @@ against a dentry. The length and name pointer are copied into local
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 @@ if anything goes wrong it is much safer to just abort and try a more
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