[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 14:53:40 +0800
From: Fox Chen <foxhlchen@...il.com>
To: 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,
paulmck@...nel.org, akiyks@...il.com, dlustig@...dia.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, corbet@....net
Cc: Fox Chen <foxhlchen@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: [PATCH] docs/memory-barriers.txt: Fix a typo in CPU MEMORY BARRIERS section
Commit 39323c6 smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic(): update Documentation
has a typo in CPU MEORY BARRIERS section:
"RMW functions that do not imply are memory barrier are ..." should be
"RMW functions that do not imply a memory barrier are ...".
This patch fixes this typo.
Signed-off-by: Fox Chen <foxhlchen@...il.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 96186332e5f4..20b8a7b30320 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -1870,7 +1870,7 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
These are for use with atomic RMW functions that do not imply memory
barriers, but where the code needs a memory barrier. Examples for atomic
- RMW functions that do not imply are memory barrier are e.g. add,
+ RMW functions that do not imply a memory barrier are e.g. add,
subtract, (failed) conditional operations, _relaxed functions,
but not atomic_read or atomic_set. A common example where a memory
barrier may be required is when atomic ops are used for reference
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists