| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20230315193851.8598-4-joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 19:38:49 +0000
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 4/6] Documentation: RCU: Correct spelling
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Correct spelling problems for Documentation/RCU/ as reported
by codespell.
Note: in RTFP.txt, there are other misspellings that are left as is
since they were used that way in email Subject: lines or in LWN.net
articles. [preemptable, Preemptable, synchonisation]
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
---
.../Expedited-Grace-Periods.rst | 6 +++---
.../Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst | 2 +-
Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt | 10 +++++-----
Documentation/RCU/UP.rst | 4 ++--
Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst | 2 +-
Documentation/RCU/torture.rst | 4 ++--
6 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Expedited-Grace-Periods/Expedited-Grace-Periods.rst b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Expedited-Grace-Periods/Expedited-Grace-Periods.rst
index c9c957c85bac..93d899d53258 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Expedited-Grace-Periods/Expedited-Grace-Periods.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Expedited-Grace-Periods/Expedited-Grace-Periods.rst
@@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ the following access functions:
Again, only one request in a given batch need actually carry out a
grace-period operation, which means there must be an efficient way to
-identify which of many concurrent reqeusts will initiate the grace
+identify which of many concurrent requests will initiate the grace
period, and that there be an efficient way for the remaining requests to
wait for that grace period to complete. However, that is the topic of
the next section.
@@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ Use of Workqueues
In earlier implementations, the task requesting the expedited grace
period also drove it to completion. This straightforward approach had
the disadvantage of needing to account for POSIX signals sent to user
-tasks, so more recent implemementations use the Linux kernel's
+tasks, so more recent implementations use the Linux kernel's
workqueues (see Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst).
The requesting task still does counter snapshotting and funnel-lock
@@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ corresponding disadvantage that workqueues cannot be used until they are
initialized, which does not happen until some time after the scheduler
spawns the first task. Given that there are parts of the kernel that
really do want to execute grace periods during this mid-boot “dead
-zone”, expedited grace periods must do something else during thie time.
+zone”, expedited grace periods must do something else during this time.
What they do is to fall back to the old practice of requiring that the
requesting task drive the expedited grace period, as was the case before
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst
index 7fdf151a8680..5750f125361b 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ an ``atomic_add_return()`` of zero) to detect idle CPUs.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
The approach must be extended to handle one final case, that of waking a
-task blocked in ``synchronize_rcu()``. This task might be affinitied to
+task blocked in ``synchronize_rcu()``. This task might be affined to
a CPU that is not yet aware that the grace period has ended, and thus
might not yet be subject to the grace period's memory ordering.
Therefore, there is an ``smp_mb()`` after the return from
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt b/Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt
index 588d97366a46..db8f16b392aa 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ work looked at debugging uses of RCU [Seyster:2011:RFA:2075416.2075425].
In 2012, Josh Triplett received his Ph.D. with his dissertation
covering RCU-protected resizable hash tables and the relationship
between memory barriers and read-side traversal order: If the updater
-is making changes in the opposite direction from the read-side traveral
+is making changes in the opposite direction from the read-side traversal
order, the updater need only execute a memory-barrier instruction,
but if in the same direction, the updater needs to wait for a grace
period between the individual updates [JoshTriplettPhD]. Also in 2012,
@@ -1245,7 +1245,7 @@ Oregon Health and Sciences University"
[Viewed September 5, 2005]"
,annotation={
First posting showing how RCU can be safely adapted for
- preemptable RCU read side critical sections.
+ preemptible RCU read side critical sections.
}
}
@@ -1888,7 +1888,7 @@ Revised:
\url{https://lore.kernel.org/r/20070910183004.GA3299@linux.vnet.ibm.com}
[Viewed October 25, 2007]"
,annotation={
- Final patch for preemptable RCU to -rt. (Later patches were
+ Final patch for preemptible RCU to -rt. (Later patches were
to mainline, eventually incorporated.)
}
}
@@ -2275,7 +2275,7 @@ lot of {Linux} into your technology!!!"
\url{https://lore.kernel.org/r/20090724001429.GA17374@linux.vnet.ibm.com}
[Viewed August 15, 2009]"
,annotation={
- First posting of simple and fast preemptable RCU.
+ First posting of simple and fast preemptible RCU.
}
}
@@ -2639,7 +2639,7 @@ lot of {Linux} into your technology!!!"
RCU-protected hash tables, barriers vs. read-side traversal order.
.
If the updater is making changes in the opposite direction from
- the read-side traveral order, the updater need only execute a
+ the read-side traversal order, the updater need only execute a
memory-barrier instruction, but if in the same direction, the
updater needs to wait for a grace period between the individual
updates.
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/UP.rst b/Documentation/RCU/UP.rst
index 8b20fd45f255..4060d7a2f62a 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/UP.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/UP.rst
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ UP systems, including PREEMPT SMP builds running on UP systems.
Quick Quiz #3:
Why can't synchronize_rcu() return immediately on UP systems running
- preemptable RCU?
+ preemptible RCU?
.. _answer_quick_quiz_up:
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ Answer to Quick Quiz #2:
Answer to Quick Quiz #3:
Why can't synchronize_rcu() return immediately on UP systems
- running preemptable RCU?
+ running preemptible RCU?
Because some other task might have been preempted in the middle
of an RCU read-side critical section. If synchronize_rcu()
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst
index 2749f43ec1b0..69e73a39bd11 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ checking of rcu_dereference() primitives:
rcu_access_pointer(p):
Return the value of the pointer and omit all barriers,
but retain the compiler constraints that prevent duplicating
- or coalescsing. This is useful when testing the
+ or coalescing. This is useful when testing the
value of the pointer itself, for example, against NULL.
The rcu_dereference_check() check expression can be any boolean
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/torture.rst b/Documentation/RCU/torture.rst
index 0316ba0c6922..b3b6dfa85248 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/torture.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/torture.rst
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ Kernel boot arguments can also be supplied, for example, to control
rcutorture's module parameters. For example, to test a change to RCU's
CPU stall-warning code, use "--bootargs 'rcutorture.stall_cpu=30'".
This will of course result in the scripting reporting a failure, namely
-the resuling RCU CPU stall warning. As noted above, reducing memory may
+the resulting RCU CPU stall warning. As noted above, reducing memory may
require disabling rcutorture's callback-flooding tests::
kvm.sh --cpus 448 --configs '56*TREE04' --memory 128M \
@@ -370,5 +370,5 @@ You can also re-run a previous remote run in a manner similar to kvm.sh:
tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/res/2022.11.03-11.26.28-remote \
--duration 24h
-In this case, most of the kvm-again.sh parmeters may be supplied following
+In this case, most of the kvm-again.sh parameters may be supplied following
the pathname of the old run-results directory.
--
2.40.0.rc1.284.g88254d51c5-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists