From 1d4093d3b3a70b947822cca76d6e4132767ce089 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Eric Engestrom Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:36:54 +0100 Subject: locking/Documentation/lockdep: Fix spelling mistakes Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1461566229-4717-2-git-send-email-eric@engestrom.ch Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- 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 5001280e9d82..9de1c158d44c 100644 --- a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt +++ b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.txt @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ between any two lock-classes: -> -> -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: ---------------- -- cgit v1.2.3