lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH 28/41] Documentation: locking: fix spelling mistakes
Date
Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric@engestrom.ch>
---
Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt
index 5001280..9de1c15 100644
--- a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt
+++ b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ between any two lock-classes:
<hardirq-safe> -> <hardirq-unsafe>
<softirq-safe> -> <softirq-unsafe>

-The first rule comes from the fact the a hardirq-safe lock could be
+The first rule comes from the fact that a hardirq-safe lock could be
taken by a hardirq context, interrupting a hardirq-unsafe lock - and
thus could result in a lock inversion deadlock. Likewise, a softirq-safe
lock could be taken by an softirq context, interrupting a softirq-unsafe
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ calculated, which hash is unique for every lock chain. The hash value,
when the chain is validated for the first time, is then put into a hash
table, which hash-table can be checked in a lockfree manner. If the
locking chain occurs again later on, the hash table tells us that we
-dont have to validate the chain again.
+don't have to validate the chain again.

Troubleshooting:
----------------
--
2.8.0
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-25 09:01    [W:0.405 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site