An unordered list in coding-guidelines.rst was indented, producing
a blockquote around it and making it look more indented than expected.
Remove the indentation to only output an unordered list.

Reported-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Closes: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1063
Fixes: d07479b211b7 ("docs: add Rust documentation")
Signed-off-by: Vincent Woltmann <vincent@woltmann.art>
---
 Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst | 38 ++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst b/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst
index 05542840b16c..da87c65600fd 100644
--- a/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst
+++ b/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst
@@ -145,32 +145,32 @@ This is how a well-documented Rust function may look like:
 This example showcases a few ``rustdoc`` features and some conventions followed
 in the kernel:
 
-  - The first paragraph must be a single sentence briefly describing what
-    the documented item does. Further explanations must go in extra paragraphs.
+- The first paragraph must be a single sentence briefly describing what
+  the documented item does. Further explanations must go in extra paragraphs.
 
-  - Unsafe functions must document their safety preconditions under
-    a ``# Safety`` section.
+- Unsafe functions must document their safety preconditions under
+  a ``# Safety`` section.
 
-  - While not shown here, if a function may panic, the conditions under which
-    that happens must be described under a ``# Panics`` section.
+- While not shown here, if a function may panic, the conditions under which
+  that happens must be described under a ``# Panics`` section.
 
-    Please note that panicking should be very rare and used only with a good
-    reason. In almost all cases, a fallible approach should be used, typically
-    returning a ``Result``.
+  Please note that panicking should be very rare and used only with a good
+  reason. In almost all cases, a fallible approach should be used, typically
+  returning a ``Result``.
 
-  - If providing examples of usage would help readers, they must be written in
-    a section called ``# Examples``.
+- If providing examples of usage would help readers, they must be written in
+  a section called ``# Examples``.
 
-  - Rust items (functions, types, constants...) must be linked appropriately
-    (``rustdoc`` will create a link automatically).
+- Rust items (functions, types, constants...) must be linked appropriately
+  (``rustdoc`` will create a link automatically).
 
-  - Any ``unsafe`` block must be preceded by a ``// SAFETY:`` comment
-    describing why the code inside is sound.
+- Any ``unsafe`` block must be preceded by a ``// SAFETY:`` comment
+  describing why the code inside is sound.
 
-    While sometimes the reason might look trivial and therefore unneeded,
-    writing these comments is not just a good way of documenting what has been
-    taken into account, but most importantly, it provides a way to know that
-    there are no *extra* implicit constraints.
+While sometimes the reason might look trivial and therefore unneeded,
+writing these comments is not just a good way of documenting what has been
+taken into account, but most importantly, it provides a way to know that
+there are no *extra* implicit constraints.
 
 To learn more about how to write documentation for Rust and extra features,
 please take a look at the ``rustdoc`` book at:
-- 
2.41.0

On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:26 AM Vincent Woltmann <vincent@woltmann.art> wrote:
>
> -    While sometimes the reason might look trivial and therefore unneeded,
> -    writing these comments is not just a good way of documenting what has been
> -    taken into account, but most importantly, it provides a way to know that
> -    there are no *extra* implicit constraints.
> +While sometimes the reason might look trivial and therefore unneeded,
> +writing these comments is not just a good way of documenting what has been
> +taken into account, but most importantly, it provides a way to know that
> +there are no *extra* implicit constraints.

Doesn't this part of the change make the paragraph be outside its bullet?

Thanks for the patch!

Cheers,
Miguel

> Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> hat am 16.08.2024 11:32 CEST geschrieben:
> 
>  
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:26 AM Vincent Woltmann <vincent@woltmann.art> wrote:
> >
> > -    While sometimes the reason might look trivial and therefore unneeded,
> > -    writing these comments is not just a good way of documenting what has been
> > -    taken into account, but most importantly, it provides a way to know that
> > -    there are no *extra* implicit constraints.
> > +While sometimes the reason might look trivial and therefore unneeded,
> > +writing these comments is not just a good way of documenting what has been
> > +taken into account, but most importantly, it provides a way to know that
> > +there are no *extra* implicit constraints.
> 
> Doesn't this part of the change make the paragraph be outside its bullet?

Yes, you are quite right, I must have missed that. Thank you for the feedback and I will prepare a new patch

Have a great day,

Vincent