docs/RCU/rcubarrier: Adjust 'Answer' parts of QQs as definition-lists

The "Answer" parts of QQs divert from proper format of definition-lists
as described at [1] and are not rendered as such.

Adjust them.

Link: [1] https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#definition-lists
Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst
index 5a643e5233d5f6c932fa6d1f7b7181181151dd47..9fb9ed77735527a7effa1fb78762b090f2e63af9 100644 (file)
--- a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst
@@ -296,7 +296,8 @@ Quick Quiz #1:
        Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
        be required?
 
-Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally
+Answer:
+       Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally
        implemented for module unloading. Nikita Danilov was using
        RCU in a filesystem, which resulted in a similar situation at
        filesystem-unmount time. Dipankar Sarma coded up rcu_barrier()
@@ -315,7 +316,8 @@ Quick Quiz #2:
        Why doesn't line 8 initialize rcu_barrier_cpu_count to zero,
        thereby avoiding the need for lines 9 and 10?
 
-Answer: Suppose that the on_each_cpu() function shown on line 8 was
+Answer:
+       Suppose that the on_each_cpu() function shown on line 8 was
        delayed, so that CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executed and
        the corresponding grace period elapsed, all before CPU 1's
        rcu_barrier_func() started executing.  This would result in
@@ -351,7 +353,8 @@ Quick Quiz #3:
        are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in
        rcu_barrier() returning prematurely?
 
-Answer: This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last
+Answer:
+       This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last
        argument, the wait flag, set to "1". This flag is passed through
        to smp_call_function() and further to smp_call_function_on_cpu(),
        causing this latter to spin until the cross-CPU invocation of