linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_opr

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:   Mon, 14 Jun 2021 14:40:38 +0200
From:   Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
To:     Herman <herman.yim88@...il.com>, a.hajda@...sung.com
Cc:     mchehab@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Herman <yanshuaijun@...ong.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_opr_v5.c : fix
 typo imporant > important

On 10/06/2021 10:24, Herman wrote:
> Change 'imporant' into 'important'.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Herman <yanshuaijun@...ong.com>
> ---
>  drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_opr_v5.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_opr_v5.c b/drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_opr_v5.c
> index 49503c20d320..aa80b3f67ded 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_opr_v5.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_opr_v5.c
> @@ -1418,7 +1418,7 @@ static void s5p_mfc_try_run_v5(struct s5p_mfc_dev *dev)
>  		if (test_and_clear_bit(0, &dev->hw_lock) == 0)
>  			mfc_err("Failed to unlock hardware\n");
>  
> -		/* This is in deed imporant, as no operation has been
> +		/* This is in deed important, as no operation has been

While we're at it, can you also change: in deed -> indeed

checkpatch also gives me:

WARNING: From:/Signed-off-by: email address mismatch: 'From: Herman <herman.yim88@...il.com>' != 'Signed-off-by: Herman
<yanshuaijun@...ong.com>'

I can manually change one of the two, but I need to know which you prefer.

Regards,

	Hans


>  		 * scheduled, reduce the clock count as no one will
>  		 * ever do this, because no interrupt related to this try_run
>  		 * will ever come from hardware. */
>