[tip:locking/core] locking/Documentation/lockdep: Fix spelling mistakes

[tip-bot for Eric Engestrom]

Commit-ID:  1d4093d3b3a70b947822cca76d6e4132767ce089
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/1d4093d3b3a70b947822cca76d6e4132767ce089
Author:     Eric Engestrom <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
AuthorDate: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:36:54 +0100
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
CommitDate: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:40:57 +0200

locking/Documentation/lockdep: Fix spelling mistakes

Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1461566229-4717-2-git-send-email-eric@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 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:
 ----------------