This commit fixes a couple of "Compiler Barrier" section references to
be "COMPILER BARRIER". This makes it easier to find the section in
the usual text editors.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index e26058d3e253..c90922b9b294 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_
be assumed:
with memory references that are not protected by READ_ONCE() and
WRITE_ONCE(). Without them, the compiler is within its rights to
do all sorts of "creative" transformations, which are covered in
- the Compiler Barrier section.
+ the COMPILER BARRIER section.
(*) It _must_not_ be assumed that independent loads and stores will be issued
in the order given. This means that for:
@@ -818,7 +818,7 @@ In summary:
(*) Control dependencies require that the compiler avoid reordering the
dependency into nonexistence. Careful use of READ_ONCE() or
atomic{,64}_read() can help to preserve your control dependency.
- Please see the Compiler Barrier section for more information.
+ Please see the COMPILER BARRIER section for more information.
(*) Control dependencies pair normally with other types of barriers.
--
2.5.2
