Re: [PATCH] Kernel-Locking doc vs 2.3.recent

• Next message: Michael D. Crawford: "Re: Can't recognize Adaptec APA-1480 with 2.4.0-test1-ac4"
• Previous message: Trond Myklebust: "Re: PATCH: Rewrite of truncate_inode_pages (WIP)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In message <Pine.LNX.4.21.0005311651540.12628-100000@front.linuxcare.com.au> yo
u write:

Two fixes: bad spelling day I guess. Thanks Alan M!

Applies on top of previous patch of same subject...

--- working-pre9/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl.~3~ Wed May 31 15:17:12 2000
+++ working-pre9/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl Wed May 31 17:18:58 2000
@@ -759,10 +759,10 @@
     </para>
 
     <para>
- Any atomic operation is defined to act as memory barriers
+ Any atomic operation is defined to act as a memory barrier
       (ie. as per the <function>mb()</function> macro). Also,
       spinlock operations act as partial barriers: operations after
- gaining a spinlock will never be moved to proceed the
+ gaining a spinlock will never be moved to precede the
       <function>spin_lock()</function> call, and operations before
       releasing a spinlock will never be moved after the
       <function>spin_unlock()</function> call.

--
Hacking time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Michael D. Crawford: "Re: Can't recognize Adaptec APA-1480 with 2.4.0-test1-ac4"
• Previous message: Trond Myklebust: "Re: PATCH: Rewrite of truncate_inode_pages (WIP)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:26 EST