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

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Sat,  7 Jul 2018 00:05:16 +0200
Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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>`.

Actually, the real problem here was that the #tag was wrong.  I've applied
the following instead.

Thanks,

jon

docs: Fix the reference labels in Locking.rst

Two jump tags were misspelled, leading to non-working cross-reference
links.

Reported-by: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
---
 Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
index f937c0fd11aa..9cc036ff57b9 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 `Hard IRQ Context <#hard-irq-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 `Per-CPU Data <#per-cpu-data>`__) 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.
 
-- 
2.17.1