On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 01:11:03PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> I'm not 100% sure these are the right fixes.
> Sending this one in the hope of getting Paul's attention.
You got them all right, thank you!
I queued and pushed both patches.
Thanx, Paul
>
> Thanks, Akira
> --
> SMPdesign/SMPdesign.tex | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/SMPdesign/SMPdesign.tex b/SMPdesign/SMPdesign.tex
> index 4d93c6e72f0b..05b86ec7271b 100644
> --- a/SMPdesign/SMPdesign.tex
> +++ b/SMPdesign/SMPdesign.tex
> @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ of time during which no CPU owns this hash table.
>
> \QuickQuiz{
> ``Partitioning time''?
> - Isn't that is an odd turn of phrase?
> + Isn't that an odd turn of phrase?
> }\QuickQuizAnswer{
> Perhaps so.
>
> @@ -593,7 +593,7 @@ Another important instance of data ownership occurs when the data
> is read-only, in which case,
> all threads can ``own'' it via replication.
>
> -Where data locking partitioned both the address space space (with one
> +Where data locking partitions both the address space (with one
> hash buckets per partition) and time (using per-bucket locks), data
> ownership partitions only the address space.
> The reason that data ownership need not partition time is because a
> --
> 2.25.1
>
>
