On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 00:05:16 +0200 Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Apparently some local links are not properly generated in locking.rst. > This patch use the ':ref:' directive to add the link to the section label. > > Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 12 ++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst > index f937c0fd11aa..574fc92a6f20 100644 > --- a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst > +++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst > @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ perfect world). > > Note that you can also use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()` or > :c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` here, which stop hardware interrupts > -as well: see `Hard IRQ Context <#hardirq-context>`__. > +as well: see :ref:`Hard IRQ Context <hardirq-context>`. Actually, the real problem here was that the #tag was wrong. I've applied the following instead. Thanks, jon docs: Fix the reference labels in Locking.rst Two jump tags were misspelled, leading to non-working cross-reference links. Reported-by: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> --- Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst index f937c0fd11aa..9cc036ff57b9 100644 --- a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst +++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ perfect world). Note that you can also use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()` or :c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` here, which stop hardware interrupts -as well: see `Hard IRQ Context <#hardirq-context>`__. +as well: see `Hard IRQ Context <#hard-irq-context>`__. This works perfectly for UP as well: the spin lock vanishes, and this macro simply becomes :c:func:`local_bh_disable()` @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ The Same Softirq ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The same softirq can run on the other CPUs: you can use a per-CPU array -(see `Per-CPU Data <#per-cpu>`__) for better performance. If you're +(see `Per-CPU Data <#per-cpu-data>`__) for better performance. If you're going so far as to use a softirq, you probably care about scalable performance enough to justify the extra complexity. -- 2.17.1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
