Documentation/memory-barriers: Fix typos

Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.de>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>

Documentation/memory-barriers.txt

@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ As a further example, consider this sequence of events:
 	===============	===============
 	{ A == 1, B == 2, C == 3, P == &A, Q == &C }
 	B = 4;		Q = P;
-	P = &B		D = *Q;
+	P = &B;		D = *Q;
 
 There is an obvious data dependency here, as the value loaded into D depends on
 the address retrieved from P by CPU 2.  At the end of the sequence, any of the
@@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ following sequence of events:
 	{ A == 1, B == 2, C == 3, P == &A, Q == &C }
 	B = 4;
 	<write barrier>
-	WRITE_ONCE(P, &B)
+	WRITE_ONCE(P, &B);
 			      Q = READ_ONCE(P);
 			      D = *Q;
 
@@ -1721,7 +1721,7 @@ of optimizations:
      and WRITE_ONCE() are more selective:  With READ_ONCE() and
      WRITE_ONCE(), the compiler need only forget the contents of the
      indicated memory locations, while with barrier() the compiler must
-     discard the value of all memory locations that it has currented
+     discard the value of all memory locations that it has currently
      cached in any machine registers.  Of course, the compiler must also
      respect the order in which the READ_ONCE()s and WRITE_ONCE()s occur,
      though the CPU of course need not do so.
@@ -1833,7 +1833,7 @@ Aside: In the case of data dependencies, the compiler would be expected
 to issue the loads in the correct order (eg. `a[b]` would have to load
 the value of b before loading a[b]), however there is no guarantee in
 the C specification that the compiler may not speculate the value of b
-(eg. is equal to 1) and load a before b (eg. tmp = a[1]; if (b != 1)
+(eg. is equal to 1) and load a[b] before b (eg. tmp = a[1]; if (b != 1)
 tmp = a[b]; ).  There is also the problem of a compiler reloading b after
 having loaded a[b], thus having a newer copy of b than a[b].  A consensus
 has not yet been reached about these problems, however the READ_ONCE()