linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][drm-next] drm/amd/powerplay: fix a few spelling mistakes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 01 Aug 2019 12:20:08 +0200
From:   walter harms <wharms@....de>
To:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
CC:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>, Rex Zhu <rex.zhu@....com>,
        Evan Quan <evan.quan@....com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        Christian König 
        <christian.koenig@....com>, David Zhou <David1.Zhou@....com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][drm-next] drm/amd/powerplay: fix a few spelling mistakes



Am 01.08.2019 10:39, schrieb Colin King:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> 
> There are a few spelling mistakes "unknow" -> "unknown" and
> "enabeld" -> "enabled". Fix these.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/amdgpu_smu.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/amdgpu_smu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/amdgpu_smu.c
> index 13b2c8a60232..d029a99e600e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/amdgpu_smu.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/amdgpu_smu.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static const char* __smu_message_names[] = {
>  const char *smu_get_message_name(struct smu_context *smu, enum smu_message_type type)
>  {
>  	if (type < 0 || type > SMU_MSG_MAX_COUNT)
> -		return "unknow smu message";
> +		return "unknown smu message";
>  	return __smu_message_names[type];
>  }
>  
> @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ static const char* __smu_feature_names[] = {
>  const char *smu_get_feature_name(struct smu_context *smu, enum smu_feature_mask feature)
>  {
>  	if (feature < 0 || feature > SMU_FEATURE_COUNT)
> -		return "unknow smu feature";
> +		return "unknown smu feature";
>  	return __smu_feature_names[feature];
>  }
>  
> @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ size_t smu_sys_get_pp_feature_mask(struct smu_context *smu, char *buf)
>  			       count++,
>  			       smu_get_feature_name(smu, i),
>  			       feature_index,
> -			       !!smu_feature_is_enabled(smu, i) ? "enabeld" : "disabled");
> +			       !!smu_feature_is_enabled(smu, i) ? "enabled" : "disabled");

i am wondering,
is that !! really needed in front of smu_feature_is_enabled ?

re,
 wh

>  	}
>  
>  failed: