[PATCH 1/2] defer/hazptr: Fix a typo: updatesa -> updates

[PATCH 1/2] defer/hazptr: Fix a typo: updatesa -> updates

[SeongJae Park]

Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>
---
 defer/hazptr.tex | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/defer/hazptr.tex b/defer/hazptr.tex
index b491c59..be93342 100644
--- a/defer/hazptr.tex
+++ b/defer/hazptr.tex
@@ -332,7 +332,7 @@ object traversed.
 Therefore, hazard pointers's performance is far short of ideal.
 On the other hand, unlike naive approaches to concurrent reference-counting,
 hazard pointers do operate correctly for workloads
-involving concurrent updatesa.
+involving concurrent updates.
 Additional performance comparisons with other mechanisms may be found in
 Chapter~\ref{chp:Data Structures}
 and in other publications~\cite{ThomasEHart2007a,McKenney:2013:SDS:2483852.2483867,MagedMichael04a}.
-- 
2.10.0

[PATCH 2/2] together: Fix a wrong number of lines

[SeongJae Park]

Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>
---
 together/applyrcu.tex | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/together/applyrcu.tex b/together/applyrcu.tex
index 9ee770c..d0b1c5d 100644
--- a/together/applyrcu.tex
+++ b/together/applyrcu.tex
@@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ Line~69 can then safely free the old \co{countarray} structure.
 \QuickQuiz{}
 	Wow!
 	Listing~\ref{lst:together:RCU and Per-Thread Statistical Counters}
-	contains 69 lines of code, compared to only 42 in
+	contains 70 lines of code, compared to only 42 in
 	Listing~\ref{lst:count:Per-Thread Statistical Counters}.
 	Is this extra complexity really worth it?
 \QuickQuizAnswer{
-- 
2.10.0

Re: [PATCH 1/2] defer/hazptr: Fix a typo: updatesa -> updates

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 09:54:24AM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote:
> Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>

Good eyes, applied and pushed, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul

> ---
>  defer/hazptr.tex | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/defer/hazptr.tex b/defer/hazptr.tex
> index b491c59..be93342 100644
> --- a/defer/hazptr.tex
> +++ b/defer/hazptr.tex
> @@ -332,7 +332,7 @@ object traversed.
>  Therefore, hazard pointers's performance is far short of ideal.
>  On the other hand, unlike naive approaches to concurrent reference-counting,
>  hazard pointers do operate correctly for workloads
> -involving concurrent updatesa.
> +involving concurrent updates.
>  Additional performance comparisons with other mechanisms may be found in
>  Chapter~\ref{chp:Data Structures}
>  and in other publications~\cite{ThomasEHart2007a,McKenney:2013:SDS:2483852.2483867,MagedMichael04a}.
> -- 
> 2.10.0
>