[PATCH v2] Documentation/locking/lockdep: Drop last two chars of sample states

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Since the removal of FS_RECLAIM annotations, lockdep states contain four
characters, not six.

Fixes: e5684bbfc3f03480 ("Documentation/locking/lockdep: Update info about states")
Fixes: d92a8cfcb37ecd13 ("locking/lockdep: Rework FS_RECLAIM annotation")
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
---
v2:
  - Fix silly before/after inversion in patch description.
---
 Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt      | 6 +++---
 Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt | 4 ++--
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt
index 238e9f61352f6187..9423b633526d14df 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt
@@ -24,11 +24,11 @@ other info that might help us debug this:
 
 rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
 3 locks held by scsi_scan_6/1552:
- #0:  (&shost->scan_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8145efca>]
+ #0:  (&shost->scan_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8145efca>]
 scsi_scan_host_selected+0x5a/0x150
- #1:  (&eq->sysfs_lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812a5032>]
+ #1:  (&eq->sysfs_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff812a5032>]
 elevator_exit+0x22/0x60
- #2:  (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff812b6233>]
+ #2:  (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff812b6233>]
 cfq_exit_queue+0x43/0x190
 
 stack backtrace:
diff --git a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt
index 49f58a07ee7b19c8..39fae143c9cbf5ff 100644
--- a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt
+++ b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt
@@ -45,10 +45,10 @@ When locking rules are violated, these state bits are presented in the
 locking error messages, inside curlies. A contrived example:
 
    modprobe/2287 is trying to acquire lock:
-    (&sio_locks[i].lock){-.-...}, at: [<c02867fd>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
+    (&sio_locks[i].lock){-.-.}, at: [<c02867fd>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
 
    but task is already holding lock:
-    (&sio_locks[i].lock){-.-...}, at: [<c02867fd>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
+    (&sio_locks[i].lock){-.-.}, at: [<c02867fd>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
 
 
 The bit position indicates STATE, STATE-read, for each of the states listed
-- 
2.17.1