linux-kernel - [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/32] tools/memory-model/Documentation: Fix typos in explanation.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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20191003002650.11249-2-paulmck@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed,  2 Oct 2019 17:26:20 -0700
From:   paulmck@...nel.org
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...nel.org
Cc:     stern@...land.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@...il.com, will@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com,
        dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr,
        akiyks@...il.com, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/32] tools/memory-model/Documentation: Fix typos in explanation.txt

From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>

This patch fixes a few minor typos and improves word usage in a few
places in the Linux Kernel Memory Model's explanation.txt file.

Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
---
 tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
index 488f11f..1b52645 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
+++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ goes like this:
 	P0 stores 1 to buf before storing 1 to flag, since it executes
 	its instructions in order.
 
-	Since an instruction (in this case, P1's store to flag) cannot
+	Since an instruction (in this case, P0's store to flag) cannot
 	execute before itself, the specified outcome is impossible.
 
 However, real computer hardware almost never follows the Sequential
@@ -419,7 +419,7 @@ example:
 
 The object code might call f(5) either before or after g(6); the
 memory model cannot assume there is a fixed program order relation
-between them.  (In fact, if the functions are inlined then the
+between them.  (In fact, if the function calls are inlined then the
 compiler might even interleave their object code.)
 
 
@@ -499,7 +499,7 @@ different CPUs (external reads-from, or rfe).
 
 For our purposes, a memory location's initial value is treated as
 though it had been written there by an imaginary initial store that
-executes on a separate CPU before the program runs.
+executes on a separate CPU before the main program runs.
 
 Usage of the rf relation implicitly assumes that loads will always
 read from a single store.  It doesn't apply properly in the presence
@@ -955,7 +955,7 @@ atomic update.  This is what the LKMM's "atomic" axiom says.
 THE PRESERVED PROGRAM ORDER RELATION: ppo
 -----------------------------------------
 
-There are many situations where a CPU is obligated to execute two
+There are many situations where a CPU is obliged to execute two
 instructions in program order.  We amalgamate them into the ppo (for
 "preserved program order") relation, which links the po-earlier
 instruction to the po-later instruction and is thus a sub-relation of
@@ -1572,7 +1572,7 @@ and there are events X, Y and a read-side critical section C such that:
 
 	2. X comes "before" Y in some sense (including rfe, co and fr);
 
-	2. Y is po-before Z;
+	3. Y is po-before Z;
 
 	4. Z is the rcu_read_unlock() event marking the end of C;
 
-- 
2.9.5