[PATCH RESEND] drm: docs: Fix typo in introduction.rst

[PATCH RESEND] drm: docs: Fix typo in introduction.rst

[Brigham Campbell]

Fix typo in Documentation/gpu/introduction.rst

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250620180258.132160-1-me@brighamcampbell.com/
Signed-off-by: Brigham Campbell <me@brighamcampbell.com>
---

This patch has received no response as of June 20th. If it's
unacceptable for whatever reason, please let me know and I'll drop it.
This is the only typo I happened across while reading the document. I
scanned it for more typos when I prepared this patch, but found none.

 Documentation/gpu/introduction.rst | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/introduction.rst b/Documentation/gpu/introduction.rst
index 3cd0c8860b94..39b4c943fa00 100644
--- a/Documentation/gpu/introduction.rst
+++ b/Documentation/gpu/introduction.rst
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ member, only the structure.
 
 Except in special situations (to separate locked from unlocked variants)
 locking requirements for functions aren't documented in the kerneldoc.
-Instead locking should be check at runtime using e.g.
+Instead locking should be checked at runtime using e.g.
 ``WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(...));``. Since it's much easier to ignore
 documentation than runtime noise this provides more value. And on top of
 that runtime checks do need to be updated when the locking rules change,

base-commit: 667efb341917bde19f5d7517b65defcdaed67c9e
-- 
2.49.0

Re: [PATCH RESEND] drm: docs: Fix typo in introduction.rst

[Jonathan Corbet]

Brigham Campbell <me@brighamcampbell.com> writes:

> Fix typo in Documentation/gpu/introduction.rst
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250620180258.132160-1-me@brighamcampbell.com/
> Signed-off-by: Brigham Campbell <me@brighamcampbell.com>
> ---
>
> This patch has received no response as of June 20th. If it's
> unacceptable for whatever reason, please let me know and I'll drop it.
> This is the only typo I happened across while reading the document. I
> scanned it for more typos when I prepared this patch, but found none.

The patch seems fine, though I wouldn't put a Link: tag for a previous
version like that.

I didn't apply it because the DRM folks generally handle their own
documentation patches.  I'm assuming this one just fell through the
cracks; resending it was the right thing to do.

Thanks,

jon