[PATCH 1/2] doc:hacking: add labels

[Federico Vaga]

Apparently some local links are not properly generated in locking.rst.
This patch use the ':ref:' directive to add the link to the section label.

Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 12 ++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
index f937c0fd11aa..574fc92a6f20 100644
--- a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
+++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ perfect world).
 
 Note that you can also use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()` or
 :c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` here, which stop hardware interrupts
-as well: see `Hard IRQ Context <#hardirq-context>`__.
+as well: see :ref:`Hard IRQ Context <hardirq-context>`.
 
 This works perfectly for UP as well: the spin lock vanishes, and this
 macro simply becomes :c:func:`local_bh_disable()`
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ The Same Softirq
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 The same softirq can run on the other CPUs: you can use a per-CPU array
-(see `Per-CPU Data <#per-cpu>`__) for better performance. If you're
+(see :ref:`Per-CPU Data <per-cpu>`) for better performance. If you're
 going so far as to use a softirq, you probably care about scalable
 performance enough to justify the extra complexity.
 
@@ -243,6 +243,8 @@ You'll need to use :c:func:`spin_lock()` and
 tasklet, different softirq or the same or another softirq: any of them
 could be running on a different CPU.
 
+.. _`hardirq-context`:
+
 Hard IRQ Context
 ================
 
@@ -875,6 +877,8 @@ Alan Cox says, âLock data, not codeâ.
 Common Problems
 ===============
 
+.. _`deadlock`:
+
 Deadlock: Simple and Advanced
 -----------------------------
 
@@ -1247,6 +1251,8 @@ The benefit here is that the reference count is not written to: the
 object is not altered in any way, which is much faster on SMP machines
 due to caching.
 
+.. _`per-cpu`:
+
 Per-CPU Data
 ------------
 
@@ -1294,6 +1300,8 @@ Naturally, this is slower than just a :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()`
 call, so it only makes sense if this type of access happens extremely
 rarely.
 
+.. _`sleeping-things`:
+
 What Functions Are Safe To Call From Interrupts?
 ================================================
 
-- 
2.17.1