* [PATCH] docs: locking: Add 'need' to hardirq section
@ 2020-03-18 5:44 Stephen Boyd
2020-03-18 14:55 ` Jonathan Corbet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Boyd @ 2020-03-18 5:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Corbet; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-doc
Add the missing word to make this sentence read properly.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
---
Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
index a8518ac0d31d..9850c1e52607 100644
--- a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
+++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ by a hardware interrupt on another CPU. This is where
interrupts on that cpu, then grab the lock.
:c:func:`spin_unlock_irq()` does the reverse.
-The irq handler does not to use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()`, because
+The irq handler does not need to use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()`, because
the softirq cannot run while the irq handler is running: it can use
:c:func:`spin_lock()`, which is slightly faster. The only exception
would be if a different hardware irq handler uses the same lock:
base-commit: fb33c6510d5595144d585aa194d377cf74d31911
--
Sent by a computer, using git, on the internet
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] docs: locking: Add 'need' to hardirq section
2020-03-18 5:44 [PATCH] docs: locking: Add 'need' to hardirq section Stephen Boyd
@ 2020-03-18 14:55 ` Jonathan Corbet
2020-03-18 17:31 ` Stephen Boyd
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2020-03-18 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Boyd; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-doc
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 22:44:25 -0700
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> wrote:
> Add the missing word to make this sentence read properly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
> ---
> Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
> index a8518ac0d31d..9850c1e52607 100644
> --- a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
> @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ by a hardware interrupt on another CPU. This is where
> interrupts on that cpu, then grab the lock.
> :c:func:`spin_unlock_irq()` does the reverse.
>
> -The irq handler does not to use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()`, because
> +The irq handler does not need to use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()`, because
Please take out the :c:func: stuff while you're at it, we don't need that
anymore. Just spin_lock_irq() will do the right thing.
Thanks,
jon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] docs: locking: Add 'need' to hardirq section
2020-03-18 14:55 ` Jonathan Corbet
@ 2020-03-18 17:31 ` Stephen Boyd
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Boyd @ 2020-03-18 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Corbet; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-doc
Quoting Jonathan Corbet (2020-03-18 07:55:42)
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 22:44:25 -0700
> Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > Add the missing word to make this sentence read properly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
> > ---
> > Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
> > index a8518ac0d31d..9850c1e52607 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
> > @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ by a hardware interrupt on another CPU. This is where
> > interrupts on that cpu, then grab the lock.
> > :c:func:`spin_unlock_irq()` does the reverse.
> >
> > -The irq handler does not to use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()`, because
> > +The irq handler does not need to use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()`, because
>
> Please take out the :c:func: stuff while you're at it, we don't need that
> anymore. Just spin_lock_irq() will do the right thing.
>
Ok. I'll make two patches then to remove func throughout this file and
you can decide to squash them or not.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-03-18 17:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-03-18 5:44 [PATCH] docs: locking: Add 'need' to hardirq section Stephen Boyd
2020-03-18 14:55 ` Jonathan Corbet
2020-03-18 17:31 ` Stephen Boyd
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).