linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/apic: Fix two typos in comments

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 5 Jan 2017 17:57:55 +0800
From:   Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        <tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/apic: Fix two typos in comments

Hi, Ingo

At 01/05/2017 04:15 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>> s/inr_logical_cpuidi/nr_logical_cpuids/
>> s/generic_processor_info()/__generic_processor_info()/
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
>> index 5b7e43e..c32a3ad 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
>> @@ -2028,7 +2028,7 @@ void disconnect_bsp_APIC(int virt_wire_setup)
>>  /*
>>   * The number of allocated logical CPU IDs. Since logical CPU IDs are allocated
>>   * contiguously, it equals to current allocated max logical CPU ID plus 1.
>> - * All allocated CPU ID should be in [0, nr_logical_cpuidi), so the maximum of
>> + * All allocated CPU ID should be in [0, nr_logical_cpuids), so the maximum of
>
> There's another typo in that sentence as well, and the wording should be clarified
> as well while at it. Something like this would work for me:
>
>> + * All allocated CPU IDs should be in the [0, nr_logical_cpuids) range,
>> + * so the maximum of
>

Yes, It is. :)

Thanks,

	Dou