linux-kernel - [PATCH RESEND] drm: docs: Fix typo in introduction.rst

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250711030157.124778-1-me@brighamcampbell.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 21:01:57 -0600
From: Brigham Campbell <me@...ghamcampbell.com>
To: skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
	linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linux.dev,
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org (open list:DRM DRIVERS),
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org (open list:DOCUMENTATION),
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list)
Cc: Brigham Campbell <me@...ghamcampbell.com>
Subject: [PATCH RESEND] drm: docs: Fix typo in introduction.rst

Fix typo in Documentation/gpu/introduction.rst

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250620180258.132160-1-me@brighamcampbell.com/
Signed-off-by: Brigham Campbell <me@...ghamcampbell.com>
---

This patch has received no response as of June 20th. If it's
unacceptable for whatever reason, please let me know and I'll drop it.
This is the only typo I happened across while reading the document. I
scanned it for more typos when I prepared this patch, but found none.

 Documentation/gpu/introduction.rst | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/introduction.rst b/Documentation/gpu/introduction.rst
index 3cd0c8860b94..39b4c943fa00 100644
--- a/Documentation/gpu/introduction.rst
+++ b/Documentation/gpu/introduction.rst
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ member, only the structure.
 
 Except in special situations (to separate locked from unlocked variants)
 locking requirements for functions aren't documented in the kerneldoc.
-Instead locking should be check at runtime using e.g.
+Instead locking should be checked at runtime using e.g.
 ``WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(...));``. Since it's much easier to ignore
 documentation than runtime noise this provides more value. And on top of
 that runtime checks do need to be updated when the locking rules change,

base-commit: 667efb341917bde19f5d7517b65defcdaed67c9e
-- 
2.49.0