Re: [PATCH] Documentation/PCI: fix spelling mistake in boot-interrupts

[Randy Dunlap]

Hi,

On 12/23/23 10:44, attreyee-muk wrote:
> Correct to “re-enabled” from “reenabled”.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Attreyee Mukherjee <tintinm2017@xxxxxxxxx>

Is "reenabled" confusing? I don't have a problem with it, but
one web page [1] says that it's OK to use "re-" if not having
the hyphen can be confusing.

[1] https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/hyphens/hyphens-with-the-prefix-re/

OTOH, some web sites say the "reenable" is OK, at least as an
alternative spelling.

Thanks.

> ---
>  Documentation/PCI/boot-interrupts.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/PCI/boot-interrupts.rst b/Documentation/PCI/boot-interrupts.rst
> index 2ec70121bfca..931077bb0953 100644
> --- a/Documentation/PCI/boot-interrupts.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/PCI/boot-interrupts.rst
> @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ Conditions
>  ==========
>  
>  The use of threaded interrupts is the most likely condition to trigger
> -this problem today. Threaded interrupts may not be reenabled after the IRQ
> +this problem today. Threaded interrupts may not be re-enabled after the IRQ
>  handler wakes. These "one shot" conditions mean that the threaded interrupt
>  needs to keep the interrupt line masked until the threaded handler has run.
>  Especially when dealing with high data rate interrupts, the thread needs to

-- 
#Randy
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
https://subspace.kernel.org/etiquette.html