linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc: host: dw_mmc: remove unexpected word "the"

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]

Message-ID: <CAPDyKFqFLGeLGk6mupPwNdKSbGk5=F9TzCukq-a2hYuF1LYFtw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 14:30:21 +0200
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Jiang Jian <jiangjian@...rlc.com>
Cc:     jh80.chung@...sung.com, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: host: dw_mmc: remove unexpected word "the"

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 11:42, Jiang Jian <jiangjian@...rlc.com> wrote:
>
> there is an unexpected word "the" in the comments that need to be removed
>
>  * command hasn't already completed (indicating the the irq

I am fine with picking up patches for these kinds of trivial
spelling/wording mistakes. However, in this case, it seems silly to
have one patch per single line of change. Would you mind walking
through the entire drivers/mmc/host/* directory and make one patch for
all the mmc host drivers instead?

Then if you want to continue with the mmc core files, that could be
another separate patch.

Kind regards
Uffe

>
> Signed-off-by: Jiang Jian <jiangjian@...rlc.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c
> index 581614196a84..7f00d7d7e35e 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c
> @@ -1363,7 +1363,7 @@ static void __dw_mci_start_request(struct dw_mci *host,
>                  * is just about to roll over.
>                  *
>                  * We do this whole thing under spinlock and only if the
> -                * command hasn't already completed (indicating the the irq
> +                * command hasn't already completed (indicating the irq
>                  * already ran so we don't want the timeout).
>                  */
>                 spin_lock_irqsave(&host->irq_lock, irqflags);
> --
> 2.17.1
>
>