Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Commit d2c488b7 authored by Nadav Har'El's avatar Nadav Har'El Committed by Avi Kivity
Browse files

Trivial: typos in core/lfmutex.cc


Fix a couple of spelling mistakes in core/lfmutex.cc

Signed-off-by: default avatarNadav Har'El <nyh@cloudius-systems.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAvi Kivity <avi@cloudius-systems.com>
parent 046e717f
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
...@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ void mutex::lock() ...@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ void mutex::lock()
// send_lock(wait_record) is similar to lock(), but instead of taking the lock // send_lock(wait_record) is similar to lock(), but instead of taking the lock
// for the current thread, it takes the lock for another thread which is // for the current thread, it takes the lock for another thread which is
// currently waiting on the given wait_record. This wait_record will be woken // currently waiting on the given wait_record. This wait_record will be woken
// when the lock becomes availble - either during the send_lock() call, or // when the lock becomes available - either during the send_lock() call, or
// sometime later when the lock holder unlock()s it. It is assumed that the // sometime later when the lock holder unlock()s it. It is assumed that the
// waiting thread DOES NOT hold the mutex at the time of this call, so the // waiting thread DOES NOT hold the mutex at the time of this call, so the
// thread should relinquish the lock before putting itself on wait_record. // thread should relinquish the lock before putting itself on wait_record.
...@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ void mutex::send_lock(wait_record *wr) ...@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ void mutex::send_lock(wait_record *wr)
// Like in lock(), we incremented "count" before pushing anything on to // Like in lock(), we incremented "count" before pushing anything on to
// the queue so a concurrent unlock() may not have found anybody to wake. // the queue so a concurrent unlock() may not have found anybody to wake.
// So we must also do the "Resposibility Hand-Off" protocol to help the // So we must also do the "Responsibility Hand-Off" protocol to help the
// concurrent unlock() return without waiting for us to push. // concurrent unlock() return without waiting for us to push.
auto old_handoff = handoff.load(); auto old_handoff = handoff.load();
if (old_handoff) { if (old_handoff) {
......
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment