[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180410070626.u27zsu2kgkojax5l@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:06:26 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@...cle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
keescook@...omium.org, pombredanne@...b.com, bp@...e.de,
abbotti@....co.uk, rdunlap@...radead.org, bhe@...hat.com,
yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux/kernel.h: Fix minor type in comment
* Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@...cle.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@...cle.com>
> ---
> include/linux/kernel.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
> index ce51455e2adf..a5b4ba3bdb61 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kernel.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
> @@ -651,7 +651,7 @@ do { \
> * your code. (Extra memory is used for special buffers that are
> * allocated when trace_printk() is used.)
> *
> - * A little optization trick is done here. If there's only one
> + * A little optimization trick is done here. If there's only one
> * argument, there's no need to scan the string for printf formats.
> * The trace_puts() will suffice. But how can we take advantage of
> * using trace_puts() when trace_printk() has only one argument?
Please also fix the typo in the title ;-)
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists