Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt

[Sebastien Dugue <sebastien.dugue@bull.net>]

  Hi Dmitri,

  one more typo I guess:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:10:42 +0300 Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@gmail.com> wrote:

> This patch deletes a couple of superfluous word occurrences in the
> document Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt.
> ---
> Sorry for a duplicate email, I forgot to Cc LKML when sending the patch.
> 
>  Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt b/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
> index 6223eac..ed57b53 100644
> --- a/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ here; a summary of the common scenarios is presented below:
>     unaligned access to be corrected.
>   - Some architectures are not capable of unaligned memory access, but will
>     silently perform a different memory access to the one that was requested,
> -   resulting a a subtle code bug that is hard to detect!
> +   resulting a subtle code bug that is hard to detect!
                ^
               in a

  Sebastien.

>  
>  It should be obvious from the above that if your code causes unaligned
>  memory accesses to happen, your code will not work correctly on certain
> @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ memory and you wish to avoid unaligned access, its usage is as follows:
>  
>  	u32 value = get_unaligned((u32 *) data);
>  
> -These macros work work for memory accesses of any length (not just 32 bits as
> +These macros work for memory accesses of any length (not just 32 bits as
>  in the examples above). Be aware that when compared to standard access of
>  aligned memory, using these macros to access unaligned memory can be costly in
>  terms of performance.