On 9/10/24 18:01, Petr Mladek wrote:
On Tue 2024-09-10 17:27:42, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
On 9/4/24 18:48, Petr Mladek wrote:
On Tue 2024-09-03 09:47:53, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
"get" doesn't properly fit as an antonym for "release" in the context
of locking. Correct it with "acquire".
Signed-off-by
On Tue 2024-09-10 17:27:42, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On 9/4/24 18:48, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Tue 2024-09-03 09:47:53, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > > "get" doesn't properly fit as an antonym for "release" in the context
> > > of locking. Correct it with "acquire".
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanj
On 9/4/24 18:48, Petr Mladek wrote:
On Tue 2024-09-03 09:47:53, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
"get" doesn't properly fit as an antonym for "release" in the context
of locking. Correct it with "acquire".
Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek
The patch is trivial. I have have committe
On Tue 2024-09-03 09:47:53, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> "get" doesn't properly fit as an antonym for "release" in the context
> of locking. Correct it with "acquire".
>
> Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek
The patch is trivial. I have have committed it into livepatching.git,
bran
"get" doesn't properly fit as an antonym for "release" in the context
of locking. Correct it with "acquire".
Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya
---
Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
b/Documen
