From 6adb7755996f0bf0f5e5f3996b016bc66f95f372 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:41:32 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] docs: locking: Add 'need' to hardirq section Add the missing word to make this sentence read properly. Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200318174133.160206-2-swboyd@chromium.org Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> --- Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst index a8518ac0d31d9..9850c1e526073 100644 --- a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst +++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ by a hardware interrupt on another CPU. This is where interrupts on that cpu, then grab the lock. :c:func:`spin_unlock_irq()` does the reverse. -The irq handler does not to use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()`, because +The irq handler does not need to use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()`, because the softirq cannot run while the irq handler is running: it can use :c:func:`spin_lock()`, which is slightly faster. The only exception would be if a different hardware irq handler uses the same lock: -- GitLab