[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1303691704-5726-3-git-send-email-dafrito@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 19:35:03 -0500
From: Aaron Faanes <dafrito@...il.com>
To: John McCutchan <john@...nmccutchan.com>,
Robert Love <rlove@...ve.org>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Aaron Faanes <dafrito@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Documentation: Correct a couple missing words in inotify.txt
Signed-off-by: Aaron Faanes <dafrito@...il.com>
---
Documentation/filesystems/inotify.txt | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/inotify.txt b/Documentation/filesystems/inotify.txt
index f00c435..8d8cba1 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/inotify.txt
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/inotify.txt
@@ -248,9 +248,9 @@ A: An fd-per-watch quickly consumes more file descriptors than are allowed,
When you talk about designing a file change notification system that
scales to 1000s of directories, juggling 1000s of fd's just does not seem
- the right interface. It is too heavy.
+ to be the right interface. It is too heavy.
- Additionally, it _is_ possible to more than one instance and
+ Additionally, it _is_ possible to have more than one instance and
juggle more than one queue and thus more than one associated fd. There
need not be a one-fd-per-process mapping; it is one-fd-per-queue and a
process can easily want more than one queue.
--
1.7.4.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists