[PATH TRIVIAL] Documentation: cpu-hotplug: Fix sysfs mount instructions

[PATH TRIVIAL] Documentation: cpu-hotplug: Fix sysfs mount instructions

[Soren Brinkmann]

The instructions for mounting sysfs are inconsistent in instructing to
create the directory '/sysfs' but then mounting sysfs to /sys.
Also, indentation is slightly off.

Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com>
---
 Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt b/Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt
index f9ad5e048b11..dd68821c22d4 100644
--- a/Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt
+++ b/Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ an entry as shown below in the output.
 
 If this is not mounted, do the following.
 
-	 #mkdir /sysfs
+	#mkdir /sys
 	#mount -t sysfs sys /sys
 
 Now you should see entries for all present cpu, the following is an example
-- 
2.6.3.3.g9bb996a

Re: [PATH TRIVIAL] Documentation: cpu-hotplug: Fix sysfs mount instructions

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 23:26:58 -0800
Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> wrote:

> The instructions for mounting sysfs are inconsistent in instructing to
> create the directory '/sysfs' but then mounting sysfs to /sys.
> Also, indentation is slightly off.

Are there really any systems out there that won't have sysfs mounted at
this point?  Oh well, the instructions might as well make sense, applied
to the docs tree.

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATH TRIVIAL] Documentation: cpu-hotplug: Fix sysfs mount instructions

[Sören Brinkmann]

On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 11:36AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 23:26:58 -0800
> Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> wrote:
> 
> > The instructions for mounting sysfs are inconsistent in instructing to
> > create the directory '/sysfs' but then mounting sysfs to /sys.
> > Also, indentation is slightly off.
> 
> Are there really any systems out there that won't have sysfs mounted at
> this point?  Oh well, the instructions might as well make sense, applied
> to the docs tree.

That's what I thought. If it is there, it could at least be correct. But
I'm not opposing removing it either.

	Thanks,
	Sören