2 files changed, 8 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl b/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl
index 0b1a3f97f285..a0d479d1e1dd 100644
--- a/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl
+++ b/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl
@@ -1961,6 +1961,12 @@ machines due to caching.
    </sect1>
   </chapter>
 
+  <chapter id="apiref">
+   <title>Mutex API reference</title>
+!Iinclude/linux/mutex.h
+!Ekernel/mutex.c
+  </chapter>
+
   <chapter id="references">
    <title>Further reading</title>
 
diff --git a/Documentation/mutex-design.txt b/Documentation/mutex-design.txt
index c91ccc0720fa..38c10fd7f411 100644
--- a/Documentation/mutex-design.txt
+++ b/Documentation/mutex-design.txt
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ firstly, there's nothing wrong with semaphores. But if the simpler
 mutex semantics are sufficient for your code, then there are a couple
 of advantages of mutexes:
 
- - 'struct mutex' is smaller on most architectures: .e.g on x86,
+ - 'struct mutex' is smaller on most architectures: E.g. on x86,
    'struct semaphore' is 20 bytes, 'struct mutex' is 16 bytes.
    A smaller structure size means less RAM footprint, and better
    CPU-cache utilization.
@@ -136,3 +136,4 @@ the APIs of 'struct mutex' have been streamlined:
  void mutex_lock_nested(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int subclass);
  int  mutex_lock_interruptible_nested(struct mutex *lock,
                                       unsigned int subclass);
+ int atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(atomic_t *cnt, struct mutex *lock);