On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 09:44:28AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Changbin Du <changbin.du@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Replace the obsolete and ambiguos macro in_irq() with new > > macro in_hardirq(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Changbin Du <changbin.du@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst | 2 +- > > Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 4 ++-- > > Documentation/translations/it_IT/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst | 2 +- > > Documentation/translations/it_IT/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 4 ++-- > > Documentation/translations/zh_CN/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst | 2 +- > > 5 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst > > index df65c19aa7df..f514cec8e16b 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst > > @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ fast: frequently it simply acknowledges the interrupt, marks a 'software > > interrupt' for execution and exits. > > > > You can tell you are in a hardware interrupt, because > > -:c:func:`in_irq()` returns true. > > +:c:func:`in_hardirq()` returns true. > > While you're in the neighborhood, can you please get rid of the :c:func: > markup? We've not needed that for some time now; simply saying > in_hardirq() is sufficient. > No problem, will updaate it soon. > Thanks, > > jon -- Cheers, Changbin Du
