From 139b6fd26d85a65c4e0d2795b87b94f9505e5943 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sharon Dvir Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 23:47:32 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] sched/Documentation: Remove unneeded word The second 'mutex' shouldn't be there, it can't be about the mutex, as the mutex can't be freed, but unlocked, the memory where the mutex resides however, can be freed. Signed-off-by: Sharon Dvir Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Linus Torvalds Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1422827252-31363-1-git-send-email-sharon.dvir1@mail.huji.ac.il Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/locking/mutex.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c index 454195194d4a..5b49f652a3cf 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ __visible void __sched __mutex_lock_slowpath(atomic_t *lock_count); * The mutex must later on be released by the same task that * acquired it. Recursive locking is not allowed. The task * may not exit without first unlocking the mutex. Also, kernel - * memory where the mutex resides mutex must not be freed with + * memory where the mutex resides must not be freed with * the mutex still locked. The mutex must first be initialized * (or statically defined) before it can be locked. memset()-ing * the mutex to 0 is not allowed.