[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240719-fix_doc-v1-1-9d176e38ba98@yadro.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 17:17:38 +0300
From: Nikita Shubin via B4 Relay <devnull+n.shubin.yadro.com@...nel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: nikita.shubin@...uefel.me, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...ro.com,
Nikita Shubin <n.shubin@...ro.com>
Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: doc: Fix function name
From: Nikita Shubin <n.shubin@...ro.com>
s/alloc_ordered_queue()/alloc_ordered_workqueue()/
Signed-off-by: Nikita Shubin <n.shubin@...ro.com>
---
Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst b/Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst
index bcc370c876be..f28d7a1ab4b1 100644
--- a/Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst
+++ b/Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst
@@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ Some users depend on strict execution ordering where only one work item
is in flight at any given time and the work items are processed in
queueing order. While the combination of ``@..._active`` of 1 and
``WQ_UNBOUND`` used to achieve this behavior, this is no longer the
-case. Use ``alloc_ordered_queue()`` instead.
+case. Use ``alloc_ordered_workqueue()`` instead.
Example Execution Scenarios
---
base-commit: 080402007007ca1bed8bcb103625137a5c8446c6
change-id: 20240719-fix_doc-4ecd72bf9934
Best regards,
--
Nikita Shubin <n.shubin@...ro.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists