linux-kernel - [PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/88] docs: Fix typo in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt

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: <1495749601-21574-21-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 May 2017 14:58:54 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com,
        Stan Drozd <drozdziak1@...il.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/88] docs: Fix typo in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt

From: Stan Drozd <drozdziak1@...il.com>

This commit changes "architecure" to the correct spelling,
"architecture".

Signed-off-by: Stan Drozd <drozdziak1@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 732f10ea382e..9d5e0f853f08 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ The purpose of this document is twofold:
  (2) to provide a guide as to how to use the barriers that are available.
 
 Note that an architecture can provide more than the minimum requirement
-for any particular barrier, but if the architecure provides less than
+for any particular barrier, but if the architecture provides less than
 that, that architecture is incorrect.
 
 Note also that it is possible that a barrier may be a no-op for an
-- 
2.5.2