Re: [PATCH] Documentation: in_irq() cleanup

[Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 09:44:28AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Replace the obsolete and ambiguos macro in_irq() with new
> > macro in_hardirq().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst                    | 2 +-
> >  Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst                    | 4 ++--
> >  Documentation/translations/it_IT/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst | 2 +-
> >  Documentation/translations/it_IT/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 4 ++--
> >  Documentation/translations/zh_CN/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst | 2 +-
> >  5 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst
> > index df65c19aa7df..f514cec8e16b 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst
> > @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ fast: frequently it simply acknowledges the interrupt, marks a 'software
> >  interrupt' for execution and exits.
> >  
> >  You can tell you are in a hardware interrupt, because
> > -:c:func:`in_irq()` returns true.
> > +:c:func:`in_hardirq()` returns true.
> 
> While you're in the neighborhood, can you please get rid of the :c:func:
> markup?  We've not needed that for some time now; simply saying
> in_hardirq() is sufficient.
>
No problem, will updaate it soon.

> Thanks,
> 
> jon

-- 
Cheers,
Changbin Du