linux-kernel - [PATCH 28/41] Documentation: locking: fix spelling mistakes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:36:54 +0100
From:	Eric Engestrom <eric@...estrom.ch>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Eric Engestrom <eric@...estrom.ch>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 28/41] Documentation: locking: fix spelling mistakes

Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric@...estrom.ch>
---
 Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt
index 5001280..9de1c15 100644
--- a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt
+++ b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ between any two lock-classes:
    <hardirq-safe>   ->  <hardirq-unsafe>
    <softirq-safe>   ->  <softirq-unsafe>
 
-The first rule comes from the fact the a hardirq-safe lock could be
+The first rule comes from the fact that a hardirq-safe lock could be
 taken by a hardirq context, interrupting a hardirq-unsafe lock - and
 thus could result in a lock inversion deadlock. Likewise, a softirq-safe
 lock could be taken by an softirq context, interrupting a softirq-unsafe
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ calculated, which hash is unique for every lock chain. The hash value,
 when the chain is validated for the first time, is then put into a hash
 table, which hash-table can be checked in a lockfree manner. If the
 locking chain occurs again later on, the hash table tells us that we
-dont have to validate the chain again.
+don't have to validate the chain again.
 
 Troubleshooting:
 ----------------
-- 
2.8.0