Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Nov 2020 09:03:11 +0200 | From | Mike Rapoport <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the akpm-current tree |
| |
On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 05:45:49PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next build (htmldocs) > produced this warning: > > Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst:296: WARNING: Malformed table. > Text in column margin in table line 61. > > ========================== =================================================== > Field Content > ========================== =================================================== ... > Speculation_Store_Bypass speculative store bypass mitigation status > Speculation_Indirect_Branch indirect branch speculation mode ... > ========================== =================================================== > Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst:234: WARNING: Error parsing content block for the "table" directive: exactly one table expected.
Looks like left column became too wide, so rather than shift the right column to the right, I'd suggest to drop underscores in Speculation*.
> > .. table:: Table 1-2: Contents of the status files (as of 4.19) > > ========================== =================================================== > Field Content > ========================== =================================================== ... > Speculation_Store_Bypass speculative store bypass mitigation status > Speculation_Indirect_Branch indirect branch speculation mode > Cpus_allowed mask of CPUs on which this process may run > Cpus_allowed_list Same as previous, but in "list format" > Mems_allowed mask of memory nodes allowed to this process > Mems_allowed_list Same as previous, but in "list format" > voluntary_ctxt_switches number of voluntary context switches > nonvoluntary_ctxt_switches number of non voluntary context switches > ========================== ===================================================
Same here.
> Introduced by commit > > 60b492d745d5 ("proc: provide details on indirect branch speculation") > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell
-- Sincerely yours, Mike.
| |