Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 13 Sep 2015 10:15:33 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] locking/static_keys: fix a silly typo |
| |
* Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com> wrote:
> On 09/07/2015 03:18 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > 412758cb2670 (jump label, locking/static_keys: Update docs) introduced a > > typo that might as well get fixed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> > > --- > > Documentation/static-keys.txt | 2 +- > > include/linux/jump_label.h | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/static-keys.txt b/Documentation/static-keys.txt > > index f4cb0b2..ec91158 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/static-keys.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/static-keys.txt > > @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ The updated API replacements are: > > DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(key); > > DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(key); > > static_key_likely() > > -statick_key_unlikely() > > +static_key_unlikely() > > > > 0) Abstract > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/jump_label.h b/include/linux/jump_label.h > > index 7f653e8..0684bd3 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/jump_label.h > > +++ b/include/linux/jump_label.h > > @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ > > * DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(key); > > * DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(key); > > * static_key_likely() > > - * statick_key_unlikely() > > + * static_key_unlikely() > > * > > * Jump labels provide an interface to generate dynamic branches using > > * self-modifying code. Assuming toolchain and architecture support, if we > > > > Thanks. I actually messed this up further. That's supposed to be, > 'static_branch_likely()', and 'static_branch_unlikely()'. So: > > s/static_key_likely()/static_branch_likely() > > and > > s/static_key_unlikely()/static_branch_unlikely() > > The rest of the doc appears to have it correctly. There are a few more > typos in there as well: > > 1) > > s/addtion/addition > > 2) > > " > The inc()/dec() interface is meant to be used exclusively from the > inc()/dec() for a given key. > " > > Was supposed to read: > > " > The inc()/dec() interface is meant to be used exclusively from the > enable()/disable() interface for a given key. > " > > However, I think we should just delete this sentence. As the API > inherently doesn't prevent this. The user just may need to be aware to > properly serialize operations.
Would be nice to turn this into a patch!
Thanks,
Ingo
| |