linux-kernel - [PATCH] arc: include/asm: Couple of spelling fixes

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20210322123259.2894194-1-unixbhaskar@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Mar 2021 18:02:59 +0530
From:   Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@...il.com>
To:     vgupta@...opsys.com, rdunlap@...radead.org, unixbhaskar@...il.com,
        linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] arc: include/asm: Couple of spelling fixes


s/interrpted/interrupted/
s/defintion/definition/

Signed-off-by: Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@...il.com>
---
 arch/arc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h b/arch/arc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
index 9b87e162e539..dfeffa25499b 100644
--- a/arch/arc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
+++ b/arch/arc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ static inline unsigned long __xchg(unsigned long val, volatile void *ptr,
  *
  * Technically the lock is also needed for UP (boils down to irq save/restore)
  * but we can cheat a bit since cmpxchg() atomic_ops_lock() would cause irqs to
- * be disabled thus can't possibly be interrpted/preempted/clobbered by xchg()
+ * be disabled thus can't possibly be interrupted/preempted/clobbered by xchg()
  * Other way around, xchg is one instruction anyways, so can't be interrupted
  * as such
  */
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ static inline unsigned long __xchg(unsigned long val, volatile void *ptr,
 /*
  * "atomic" variant of xchg()
  * REQ: It needs to follow the same serialization rules as other atomic_xxx()
- * Since xchg() doesn't always do that, it would seem that following defintion
+ * Since xchg() doesn't always do that, it would seem that following definition
  * is incorrect. But here's the rationale:
  *   SMP : Even xchg() takes the atomic_ops_lock, so OK.
  *   LLSC: atomic_ops_lock are not relevant at all (even if SMP, since LLSC
--
2.31.0