linux-kernel - [PATCH 34/41] Documentation: robust-futexes: 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]

Message-Id: <1461566229-4717-8-git-send-email-eric@engestrom.ch>
Date:	Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:37:00 +0100
From:	Eric Engestrom <eric@...estrom.ch>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Eric Engestrom <eric@...estrom.ch>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 34/41] Documentation: robust-futexes: fix spelling mistakes

Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric@...estrom.ch>
---
 Documentation/robust-futexes.txt | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/robust-futexes.txt b/Documentation/robust-futexes.txt
index af6fce2..61c22d6 100644
--- a/Documentation/robust-futexes.txt
+++ b/Documentation/robust-futexes.txt
@@ -126,9 +126,9 @@ vma based method:
 
  - no VM changes are needed - 'struct address_space' is left alone.
 
- - no registration of individual locks is needed: robust mutexes dont
+ - no registration of individual locks is needed: robust mutexes don't
    need any extra per-lock syscalls. Robust mutexes thus become a very
-   lightweight primitive - so they dont force the application designer
+   lightweight primitive - so they don't force the application designer
    to do a hard choice between performance and robustness - robust
    mutexes are just as fast.
 
@@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ and the remaining bits are for the TID.
 Testing, architecture support
 -----------------------------
 
-i've tested the new syscalls on x86 and x86_64, and have made sure the
+I've tested the new syscalls on x86 and x86_64, and have made sure the
 parsing of the userspace list is robust [ ;-) ] even if the list is
 deliberately corrupted.
 
-- 
2.8.0