Correct spelling problems for Documentation/RCU/ as reported
by codespell.
Note: in RTFP.txt, there are other misspellings that are left as is
since they were used that way in email Subject: lines or in LWN.net
articles. [preemptable, Preemptable, synchonisation]
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: rcu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
.../Design/Expedited-Grace-Periods/Expedited-Grace-Periods.rst | 6 +++---
.../Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst | 2 +-
.../RTFP.txt | 10 +++++-----
.../UP.rst | 4 ++--
.../lockdep.rst | 2 +-
.../torture.rst | 4 ++--
6 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff -- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Expedited-Grace-Periods/Expedited-Grace-Periods.rst b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Expedited-Grace-Periods/Expedited-Grace-Periods.rst
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Expedited-Grace-Periods/Expedited-Grace-Periods.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Expedited-Grace-Periods/Expedited-Grace-Periods.rst
@@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ the following access functions:
Again, only one request in a given batch need actually carry out a
grace-period operation, which means there must be an efficient way to
-identify which of many concurrent reqeusts will initiate the grace
+identify which of many concurrent requests will initiate the grace
period, and that there be an efficient way for the remaining requests to
wait for that grace period to complete. However, that is the topic of
the next section.
@@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ Use of Workqueues
In earlier implementations, the task requesting the expedited grace
period also drove it to completion. This straightforward approach had
the disadvantage of needing to account for POSIX signals sent to user
-tasks, so more recent implemementations use the Linux kernel's
+tasks, so more recent implementations use the Linux kernel's
workqueues (see Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst).
The requesting task still does counter snapshotting and funnel-lock
@@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ corresponding disadvantage that workqueu
initialized, which does not happen until some time after the scheduler
spawns the first task. Given that there are parts of the kernel that
really do want to execute grace periods during this mid-boot “dead
-zone”, expedited grace periods must do something else during thie time.
+zone”, expedited grace periods must do something else during this time.
What they do is to fall back to the old practice of requiring that the
requesting task drive the expedited grace period, as was the case before
diff -- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ an ``atomic_add_return()`` of zero) to d
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
The approach must be extended to handle one final case, that of waking a
-task blocked in ``synchronize_rcu()``. This task might be affinitied to
+task blocked in ``synchronize_rcu()``. This task might be affined to
a CPU that is not yet aware that the grace period has ended, and thus
might not yet be subject to the grace period's memory ordering.
Therefore, there is an ``smp_mb()`` after the return from
diff -- a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst
--- a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ checking of rcu_dereference() primitives
rcu_access_pointer(p):
Return the value of the pointer and omit all barriers,
but retain the compiler constraints that prevent duplicating
- or coalescsing. This is useful when testing the
+ or coalescing. This is useful when testing the
value of the pointer itself, for example, against NULL.
The rcu_dereference_check() check expression can be any boolean
diff -- a/Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt b/Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt
--- a/Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ work looked at debugging uses of RCU [Se
In 2012, Josh Triplett received his Ph.D. with his dissertation
covering RCU-protected resizable hash tables and the relationship
between memory barriers and read-side traversal order: If the updater
-is making changes in the opposite direction from the read-side traveral
+is making changes in the opposite direction from the read-side traversal
order, the updater need only execute a memory-barrier instruction,
but if in the same direction, the updater needs to wait for a grace
period between the individual updates [JoshTriplettPhD]. Also in 2012,
@@ -1245,7 +1245,7 @@ Oregon Health and Sciences University"
[Viewed September 5, 2005]"
,annotation={
First posting showing how RCU can be safely adapted for
- preemptable RCU read side critical sections.
+ preemptible RCU read side critical sections.
}
}
@@ -1888,7 +1888,7 @@ Revised:
\url{https://lore.kernel.org/r/20070910183004.GA3299@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}
[Viewed October 25, 2007]"
,annotation={
- Final patch for preemptable RCU to -rt. (Later patches were
+ Final patch for preemptible RCU to -rt. (Later patches were
to mainline, eventually incorporated.)
}
}
@@ -2275,7 +2275,7 @@ lot of {Linux} into your technology!!!"
\url{https://lore.kernel.org/r/20090724001429.GA17374@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}
[Viewed August 15, 2009]"
,annotation={
- First posting of simple and fast preemptable RCU.
+ First posting of simple and fast preemptible RCU.
}
}
@@ -2639,7 +2639,7 @@ lot of {Linux} into your technology!!!"
RCU-protected hash tables, barriers vs. read-side traversal order.
.
If the updater is making changes in the opposite direction from
- the read-side traveral order, the updater need only execute a
+ the read-side traversal order, the updater need only execute a
memory-barrier instruction, but if in the same direction, the
updater needs to wait for a grace period between the individual
updates.
diff -- a/Documentation/RCU/torture.rst b/Documentation/RCU/torture.rst
--- a/Documentation/RCU/torture.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/torture.rst
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ Kernel boot arguments can also be suppli
rcutorture's module parameters. For example, to test a change to RCU's
CPU stall-warning code, use "--bootargs 'rcutorture.stall_cpu=30'".
This will of course result in the scripting reporting a failure, namely
-the resuling RCU CPU stall warning. As noted above, reducing memory may
+the resulting RCU CPU stall warning. As noted above, reducing memory may
require disabling rcutorture's callback-flooding tests::
kvm.sh --cpus 448 --configs '56*TREE04' --memory 128M \
@@ -370,5 +370,5 @@ You can also re-run a previous remote ru
tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/res/2022.11.03-11.26.28-remote \
--duration 24h
-In this case, most of the kvm-again.sh parmeters may be supplied following
+In this case, most of the kvm-again.sh parameters may be supplied following
the pathname of the old run-results directory.
diff -- a/Documentation/RCU/UP.rst b/Documentation/RCU/UP.rst
--- a/Documentation/RCU/UP.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/UP.rst
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ UP systems, including PREEMPT SMP builds
Quick Quiz #3:
Why can't synchronize_rcu() return immediately on UP systems running
- preemptable RCU?
+ preemptible RCU?
.. _answer_quick_quiz_up:
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ Answer to Quick Quiz #2:
Answer to Quick Quiz #3:
Why can't synchronize_rcu() return immediately on UP systems
- running preemptable RCU?
+ running preemptible RCU?
Because some other task might have been preempted in the middle
of an RCU read-side critical section. If synchronize_rcu()
