[+cc Randy] On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 12:14:13AM +0530, attreyee-muk wrote: > Correct to “re-enabled” from “reenabled”. > > Signed-off-by: Attreyee Mukherjee <tintinm2017@xxxxxxxxx> I'm fine with this either way, so I squashed this together with the "busses" patch and they're both on pci/misc for v6.8. > --- > Documentation/PCI/boot-interrupts.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/PCI/boot-interrupts.rst b/Documentation/PCI/boot-interrupts.rst > index 2ec70121bfca..931077bb0953 100644 > --- a/Documentation/PCI/boot-interrupts.rst > +++ b/Documentation/PCI/boot-interrupts.rst > @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ Conditions > ========== > > The use of threaded interrupts is the most likely condition to trigger > -this problem today. Threaded interrupts may not be reenabled after the IRQ > +this problem today. Threaded interrupts may not be re-enabled after the IRQ > handler wakes. These "one shot" conditions mean that the threaded interrupt > needs to keep the interrupt line masked until the threaded handler has run. > Especially when dealing with high data rate interrupts, the thread needs to > -- > 2.34.1 >
