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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 6 Aug 2021 16:27:38 +0200
From:   Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
To:     Jun Miao <jun.miao@...driver.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        deller@....de, wei.liu@...nel.org,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/hung_task.c: Fix a typo in check_hung_task() comment

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 1:41 PM Jun Miao <jun.miao@...driver.com> wrote:
>
> It's "mustn't", not "musn't". Let's fix that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jun Miao <jun.miao@...driver.com>
> ---
>  kernel/hung_task.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/hung_task.c b/kernel/hung_task.c
> index 9888e2bc8c76..ea5ba912db06 100644
> --- a/kernel/hung_task.c
> +++ b/kernel/hung_task.c
> @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ static void check_hung_task(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long timeout)
>         /*
>          * When a freshly created task is scheduled once, changes its state to
>          * TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE without having ever been switched out once, it
> -        * musn't be checked.
> +        * mustn't be checked.

I cannot even parse this comment.

Does "When a freshly created task is scheduled once, changes its state
to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE" mean "When a freshly created task is
scheduled once and it changes its state to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE"?

Does this "it must not be checked" read as "it shall not be checked"
(as in "because if you check it, something goes wrong") or "it is not
required to be checked" (as in "usually, you need to check it
(otherwise something goes wrong), but here in this case, you do not
need to check it, because it cannot go wrong in this case")?

Fixing spelling mistakes is okay, but it is even better to check the
sentence you are correcting and try to comprehend it.

Lukas

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ