From c8cce10a62aaaca33bbdbe7356bde20a47790290 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:17:55 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] docs: Fix the reference labels in Locking.rst Two jump tags were misspelled, leading to non-working cross-reference links. Reported-by: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> --- Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst index f937c0fd11aaa..9cc036ff57b94 100644 --- a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst +++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ perfect world). Note that you can also use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()` or :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 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 -(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 performance enough to justify the extra complexity. -- GitLab