Actually, VirtualLock() looks better as \cw{} not \c{}.

[sgt/putty] / doc / faq.but

diff --git a/doc/faq.but b/doc/faq.but
index 2916a92..8910010 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/faq.but
+++ b/doc/faq.but
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-\versionid $Id: faq.but,v 1.31 2002/08/09 09:11:09 simon Exp $
+\versionid $Id: faq.but,v 1.32 2002/08/09 09:14:04 simon Exp $

 
 \A{faq} PuTTY FAQ
 
 
 \A{faq} PuTTY FAQ
 


@@ -795,15 +795,15 @@ all. For this reason we now believe PuTTY's DSA implementation is
 probably OK. However, if you have the choice, we still recommend you
 use RSA instead.
 
 probably OK. However, if you have the choice, we still recommend you
 use RSA instead.
 

-\S{faq-virtuallock}{Question} Couldn't Pageant use \c{VirtualLock()}
-to stop private keys being written to disk?
+\S{faq-virtuallock}{Question} Couldn't Pageant use
+\cw{VirtualLock()} to stop private keys being written to disk?

 
 

-Unfortunately not. The \c{VirtualLock()} function in the Windows API
-doesn't do a proper job: it may prevent small pieces of a process's
-memory from being paged to disk while the process is running, but it
-doesn't stop the process's memory as a whole from being swapped
-completely out to disk when the process is long-term inactive. And
-Pageant spends most of its time inactive.
+Unfortunately not. The \cw{VirtualLock()} function in the Windows
+API doesn't do a proper job: it may prevent small pieces of a
+process's memory from being paged to disk while the process is
+running, but it doesn't stop the process's memory as a whole from
+being swapped completely out to disk when the process is long-term
+inactive. And Pageant spends most of its time inactive.

 
 \H{faq-admin} Administrative questions
 
 
 \H{faq-admin} Administrative questions