Commit c8cce10a authored by Jonathan Corbet's avatar Jonathan Corbet
Browse files

docs: Fix the reference labels in Locking.rst 



Two jump tags were misspelled, leading to non-working cross-reference
links.

Reported-by: default avatarFederico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it>
Signed-off-by: default avatarJonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
parent 1fee4f77

Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst

+2 −2
Original line number Original line Diff line number Diff line
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ perfect world). 




Note that you can also use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()` or

Note that you can also use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()` or

:c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` here, which stop hardware interrupts

:c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` here, which stop hardware interrupts

as well: see `Hard IRQ Context <#hardirq-context>`__.

as well: see `Hard IRQ Context <#hard-irq-context>`__.





This works perfectly for UP as well: the spin lock vanishes, and this

This works perfectly for UP as well: the spin lock vanishes, and this

macro simply becomes :c:func:`local_bh_disable()`

macro simply becomes :c:func:`local_bh_disable()`
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ The Same Softirq 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





The same softirq can run on the other CPUs: you can use a per-CPU array

The same softirq can run on the other CPUs: you can use a per-CPU array

(see `Per-CPU Data <#per-cpu>`__) for better performance. If you're

(see `Per-CPU Data <#per-cpu-data>`__) for better performance. If you're

going so far as to use a softirq, you probably care about scalable

going so far as to use a softirq, you probably care about scalable

performance enough to justify the extra complexity.

performance enough to justify the extra complexity.