[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200318085542.081ca750@lwn.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 08:55:42 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: locking: Add 'need' to hardirq section
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 22:44:25 -0700
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
> Add the missing word to make this sentence read properly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
> ---
> Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
> index a8518ac0d31d..9850c1e52607 100644
> --- a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
> @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ by a hardware interrupt on another CPU. This is where
> interrupts on that cpu, then grab the lock.
> :c:func:`spin_unlock_irq()` does the reverse.
>
> -The irq handler does not to use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()`, because
> +The irq handler does not need to use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()`, because
Please take out the :c:func: stuff while you're at it, we don't need that
anymore. Just spin_lock_irq() will do the right thing.
Thanks,
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists