[PATCH] paravirt: fix missing pte update

[net-next-2.6.git] / Documentation / memory-barriers.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index cf0d5416a4c39271aa572188647a7d30de93806a..58408dd023c77e0e0712d02811fc0238c5ee1742 100644 (file)
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ There are some minimal guarantees that may be expected of a CPU:
 
        STORE *X = c, d = LOAD *X
 
-     (Loads and stores overlap if they are targetted at overlapping pieces of
+     (Loads and stores overlap if they are targeted at overlapping pieces of
      memory).
 
 And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed:
@@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ Consider the following sequence of events:
 
 This sequence of events is committed to the memory coherence system in an order
 that the rest of the system might perceive as the unordered set of { STORE A,
-STORE B, STORE C } all occuring before the unordered set of { STORE D, STORE E
+STORE B, STORE C } all occurring before the unordered set of { STORE D, STORE E
 }:
 
        +-------+       :      :
@@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ effectively random order, despite the write barrier issued by CPU 1:
 
 
 In the above example, CPU 2 perceives that B is 7, despite the load of *C
-(which would be B) coming after the the LOAD of C.
+(which would be B) coming after the LOAD of C.
 
 If, however, a data dependency barrier were to be placed between the load of C
 and the load of *C (ie: B) on CPU 2:
@@ -1015,10 +1015,9 @@ CPU from reordering them.
 There are some more advanced barrier functions:
 
  (*) set_mb(var, value)
- (*) set_wmb(var, value)
 
-     These assign the value to the variable and then insert at least a write
-     barrier after it, depending on the function.  They aren't guaranteed to
+     This assigns the value to the variable and then inserts a full memory
+     barrier after it, depending on the function.  It isn't guaranteed to
      insert anything more than a compiler barrier in a UP compilation.
 
 
@@ -1899,7 +1898,7 @@ queue before processing any further requests:
        smp_wmb();
        <A:modify v=2>  <C:busy>
                        <C:queue v=2>
-       p = &b;         q = p;
+       p = &v;         q = p;
                        <D:request p>
        <B:modify p=&v> <D:commit p=&v>
                        <D:read p>
@@ -1916,7 +1915,7 @@ Whilst most CPUs do imply a data dependency barrier on the read when a memory
 access depends on a read, not all do, so it may not be relied on.
 
 Other CPUs may also have split caches, but must coordinate between the various
-cachelets for normal memory accesss.  The semantics of the Alpha removes the
+cachelets for normal memory accesses.  The semantics of the Alpha removes the
 need for coordination in absence of memory barriers.