From d6c812ea287a1821e074e2b57a82ad7db9244486 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Donald Pinckney Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:29:22 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Correct the filenames in comments for where _start() is. (#488) --- blog/content/second-edition/posts/07-double-faults/index.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/blog/content/second-edition/posts/07-double-faults/index.md b/blog/content/second-edition/posts/07-double-faults/index.md index b462b479..cfc04eee 100644 --- a/blog/content/second-edition/posts/07-double-faults/index.md +++ b/blog/content/second-edition/posts/07-double-faults/index.md @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ A double fault behaves like a normal exception. It has the vector number `8` and Let's provoke a double fault by triggering an exception for that we didn't define a handler function: ```rust -// in src/lib.rs +// in src/main.rs #[cfg(not(test))] #[no_mangle] @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ So the CPU tries to call the _double fault handler_ now. However, on a double fa Let's try it ourselves! We can easily provoke a kernel stack overflow by calling a function that recurses endlessly: ```rust -// in src/lib.rs +// in src/main.rs #[cfg(not(test))] #[no_mangle] // don't mangle the name of this function