Re: [PATCH] docs: locking: Add 'need' to hardirq section

[Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>]

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 22:44:25 -0700
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> wrote:

> Add the missing word to make this sentence read properly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
> index a8518ac0d31d..9850c1e52607 100644
> --- a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
> @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ by a hardware interrupt on another CPU. This is where
>  interrupts on that cpu, then grab the lock.
>  :c:func:`spin_unlock_irq()` does the reverse.
>  
> -The irq handler does not to use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()`, because
> +The irq handler does not need to use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()`, because

Please take out the :c:func: stuff while you're at it, we don't need that
anymore.  Just spin_lock_irq() will do the right thing.

Thanks,

jon