Documentation/CodingStyle: use the proper tag for verbatim font

On Sphinx/ReST notation, ``foo`` means that foo will be will be
marked as inline literal, effectively making it to be presented
as a monospaced font.

As we want this document to be parsed by Sphinx, instead of using
"foo", use ``foo`` for the names that are literal, because it is an
usual typographic convention to use monospaced fonts for functions
and language commands on documents, and we're following such
convention on the other ReST books.

Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

1 files changed, 49 insertions, 49 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/CodingStyle b/Documentation/CodingStyle
index f103de7e2028..c25528d76af1 100644
--- a/Documentation/CodingStyle
+++ b/Documentation/CodingStyle
@@ -37,8 +37,8 @@ benefit of warning you when you're nesting your functions too deep.
 Heed that warning.
 
 The preferred way to ease multiple indentation levels in a switch statement is
-to align the "switch" and its subordinate "case" labels in the same column
-instead of "double-indenting" the "case" labels.  E.g.:
+to align the ``switch`` and its subordinate ``case`` labels in the same column
+instead of ``double-indenting`` the ``case`` labels.  E.g.:
 
 .. code-block:: c
 
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ special anyway (you can't nest them in C).
 
 Note that the closing brace is empty on a line of its own, _except_ in
 the cases where it is followed by a continuation of the same statement,
-ie a "while" in a do-statement or an "else" in an if-statement, like
+ie a ``while`` in a do-statement or an ``else`` in an if-statement, like
 this:
 
 .. code-block:: c
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ Do not add spaces around (inside) parenthesized expressions.  This example is
         s = sizeof( struct file );
 
 When declaring pointer data or a function that returns a pointer type, the
-preferred use of '\*' is adjacent to the data name or function name and not
+preferred use of ``*`` is adjacent to the data name or function name and not
 adjacent to the type name.  Examples:
 
 .. code-block:: c
@@ -255,10 +255,10 @@ no space after the prefix increment & decrement unary operators::
 
         ++  --
 
-and no space around the '.' and "->" structure member operators.
+and no space around the ``.`` and ``->`` structure member operators.
 
 Do not leave trailing whitespace at the ends of lines.  Some editors with
-"smart" indentation will insert whitespace at the beginning of new lines as
+``smart`` indentation will insert whitespace at the beginning of new lines as
 appropriate, so you can start typing the next line of code right away.
 However, some such editors do not remove the whitespace if you end up not
 putting a line of code there, such as if you leave a blank line.  As a result,
@@ -276,17 +276,17 @@ context lines.
 C is a Spartan language, and so should your naming be.  Unlike Modula-2
 and Pascal programmers, C programmers do not use cute names like
 ThisVariableIsATemporaryCounter.  A C programmer would call that
-variable "tmp", which is much easier to write, and not the least more
+variable ``tmp``, which is much easier to write, and not the least more
 difficult to understand.
 
 HOWEVER, while mixed-case names are frowned upon, descriptive names for
-global variables are a must.  To call a global function "foo" is a
+global variables are a must.  To call a global function ``foo`` is a
 shooting offense.
 
 GLOBAL variables (to be used only if you _really_ need them) need to
 have descriptive names, as do global functions.  If you have a function
 that counts the number of active users, you should call that
-"count_active_users()" or similar, you should _not_ call it "cntusr()".
+``count_active_users()`` or similar, you should _not_ call it ``cntusr()``.
 
 Encoding the type of a function into the name (so-called Hungarian
 notation) is brain damaged - the compiler knows the types anyway and can
@@ -294,9 +294,9 @@ check those, and it only confuses the programmer.  No wonder MicroSoft
 makes buggy programs.
 
 LOCAL variable names should be short, and to the point.  If you have
-some random integer loop counter, it should probably be called "i".
-Calling it "loop_counter" is non-productive, if there is no chance of it
-being mis-understood.  Similarly, "tmp" can be just about any type of
+some random integer loop counter, it should probably be called ``i``.
+Calling it ``loop_counter`` is non-productive, if there is no chance of it
+being mis-understood.  Similarly, ``tmp`` can be just about any type of
 variable that is used to hold a temporary value.
 
 If you are afraid to mix up your local variable names, you have another
@@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ See chapter 6 (Functions).
 5) Typedefs
 -----------
 
-Please don't use things like "vps_t".
+Please don't use things like ``vps_t``.
 It's a _mistake_ to use typedef for structures and pointers. When you see a
 
 .. code-block:: c
@@ -322,35 +322,35 @@ In contrast, if it says
 
         struct virtual_container *a;
 
-you can actually tell what "a" is.
+you can actually tell what ``a`` is.
 
-Lots of people think that typedefs "help readability". Not so. They are
+Lots of people think that typedefs ``help readability``. Not so. They are
 useful only for:
 
  (a) totally opaque objects (where the typedef is actively used to _hide_
      what the object is).
 
-     Example: "pte_t" etc. opaque objects that you can only access using
+     Example: ``pte_t`` etc. opaque objects that you can only access using
      the proper accessor functions.
 
-     NOTE! Opaqueness and "accessor functions" are not good in themselves.
+     NOTE! Opaqueness and ``accessor functions`` are not good in themselves.
      The reason we have them for things like pte_t etc. is that there
      really is absolutely _zero_ portably accessible information there.
 
  (b) Clear integer types, where the abstraction _helps_ avoid confusion
-     whether it is "int" or "long".
+     whether it is ``int`` or ``long``.
 
      u8/u16/u32 are perfectly fine typedefs, although they fit into
      category (d) better than here.
 
      NOTE! Again - there needs to be a _reason_ for this. If something is
-     "unsigned long", then there's no reason to do
+     ``unsigned long``, then there's no reason to do
 
         typedef unsigned long myflags_t;
 
      but if there is a clear reason for why it under certain circumstances
-     might be an "unsigned int" and under other configurations might be
-     "unsigned long", then by all means go ahead and use a typedef.
+     might be an ``unsigned int`` and under other configurations might be
+     ``unsigned long``, then by all means go ahead and use a typedef.
 
  (c) when you use sparse to literally create a _new_ type for
      type-checking.
@@ -359,10 +359,10 @@ useful only for:
      exceptional circumstances.
 
      Although it would only take a short amount of time for the eyes and
-     brain to become accustomed to the standard types like 'uint32_t',
+     brain to become accustomed to the standard types like ``uint32_t``,
      some people object to their use anyway.
 
-     Therefore, the Linux-specific 'u8/u16/u32/u64' types and their
+     Therefore, the Linux-specific ``u8/u16/u32/u64`` types and their
      signed equivalents which are identical to standard types are
      permitted -- although they are not mandatory in new code of your
      own.
@@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ useful only for:
  (e) Types safe for use in userspace.
 
      In certain structures which are visible to userspace, we cannot
-     require C99 types and cannot use the 'u32' form above. Thus, we
+     require C99 types and cannot use the ``u32`` form above. Thus, we
      use __u32 and similar types in all structures which are shared
      with userspace.
 
@@ -440,13 +440,13 @@ locations and some common work such as cleanup has to be done.  If there is no
 cleanup needed then just return directly.