From: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@xxxxxxxxx>
A few sentences in dyntickrcu.tex are using ``\co{}'', which can be
shortenized with \qco{}. Use the shorter one.
Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@xxxxxxxxx>
---
formal/dyntickrcu.tex | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/formal/dyntickrcu.tex b/formal/dyntickrcu.tex
index 25012738..42c0c55c 100644
--- a/formal/dyntickrcu.tex
+++ b/formal/dyntickrcu.tex
@@ -890,12 +890,12 @@ statements in that group execute atomically.
%
\QuickQuizE{
But what if the \co{dynticks_nohz()} process had
- ``if'' or ``do'' statements with conditions,
+ \qco{if} or \qco{do} statements with conditions,
where the statement bodies of these constructs
needed to execute non-atomically?
}\QuickQuizAnswerE{
One approach, as we will see in a later section,
- is to use explicit labels and ``goto'' statements.
+ is to use explicit labels and \qco{goto} statements.
For example, the construct:
\begin{VerbatimU}
@@ -921,7 +921,7 @@ statements in that group execute atomically.
\end{VerbatimU}
However, it is not clear that the macro is helping much in the case
- of the ``if'' statement, so these sorts of situations will
+ of the \qco{if} statement, so these sorts of situations will
be open-coded in the following sections.
}\QuickQuizEndE
}
@@ -1067,7 +1067,7 @@ to \co{EXECUTE_IRQ()} as follows:
\input{CodeSamples/formal/promela/dyntick/dyntickRCU-irq-nmi-ssl@dyntick_irq.fcv}
\begin{fcvref}[ln:formal:promela:dyntick:dyntickRCU-irq-nmi-ssl:dyntick_irq]
-Note that we have open-coded the ``if'' statements
+Note that we have open-coded the \qco{if} statements
(for example, \clnrefrange{stmt1:b}{stmt1:e}).
In addition, statements that process strictly local state
(such as \clnref{inc_i}) need not exclude \co{dyntick_nmi()}.
--
2.17.1
