linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs/memory-barriers.txt: Fix a typo in CPU MEMORY BARRIERS section

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: <20200911140218.GB19961@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:02:19 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Fox Chen <foxhlchen@...il.com>
Cc:     stern@...land.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@...il.com,
        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,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs/memory-barriers.txt: Fix a typo in CPU MEMORY
 BARRIERS section

On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 02:53:40PM +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> 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

The document remains unreadable, but this is still worth fixing!

Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>

Will