Re: [PATCH] locking/static_keys: fix a silly typo

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* 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