lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
Subject[tip:locking/core] locking/Documentation/lockdep: Fix spelling mistakes
Commit-ID:  1d4093d3b3a70b947822cca76d6e4132767ce089
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/1d4093d3b3a70b947822cca76d6e4132767ce089
Author: Eric Engestrom <eric@engestrom.ch>
AuthorDate: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:36:54 +0100
Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CommitDate: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:40:57 +0200

locking/Documentation/lockdep: Fix spelling mistakes

Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric@engestrom.ch>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1461566229-4717-2-git-send-email-eric@engestrom.ch
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
---
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:
----------------
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-28 12:41    [W:0.214 / U:1.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site