Re: [PATCH] locking/static_keys: fix a silly typo

[Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>]

On 09/07/2015 03:18 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 412758cb2670 (jump label, locking/static_keys: Update docs) introduced a
> typo that might as well get fixed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> ---
>  Documentation/static-keys.txt | 2 +-
>  include/linux/jump_label.h    | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/static-keys.txt b/Documentation/static-keys.txt
> index f4cb0b2..ec91158 100644
> --- a/Documentation/static-keys.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/static-keys.txt
> @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ The updated API replacements are:
>  DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(key);
>  DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(key);
>  static_key_likely()
> -statick_key_unlikely()
> +static_key_unlikely()
>  
>  0) Abstract
>  
> diff --git a/include/linux/jump_label.h b/include/linux/jump_label.h
> index 7f653e8..0684bd3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/jump_label.h
> +++ b/include/linux/jump_label.h
> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
>   * DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(key);
>   * DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(key);
>   * static_key_likely()
> - * statick_key_unlikely()
> + * static_key_unlikely()
>   *
>   * Jump labels provide an interface to generate dynamic branches using
>   * self-modifying code. Assuming toolchain and architecture support, if we
> 

Thanks. I actually messed this up further. That's supposed to be,
'static_branch_likely()', and 'static_branch_unlikely()'. So:

s/static_key_likely()/static_branch_likely()

and

s/static_key_unlikely()/static_branch_unlikely()

The rest of the doc appears to have it correctly. There are a few more
typos in there as well:

1)

s/addtion/addition

2)

"
The inc()/dec() interface is meant to be used exclusively from the
inc()/dec() for a given key.
"

Was supposed to read:

"
The inc()/dec() interface is meant to be used exclusively from the
enable()/disable() interface for a given key.
"

However, I think we should just delete this sentence. As the API
inherently doesn't prevent this. The user just may need to be aware to
properly serialize operations.


Thanks,

-Jason