linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: Fix spelling mistakes in comments

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:   Mon, 4 Jul 2022 18:01:22 +0000
From:   "Daniel K." <d@...vu>
To:     Zhang Jiaming <jiaming@...china.com>, song@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        liqiong@...china.com, renyu@...china.com,
        Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Fix spelling mistakes in comments

On 7/4/22 10:05, Zhang Jiaming wrote:
> Fix spelling of dones't and waitting in comments.

Version your patches, you're now at v2. [PATCH v2] ...

Please find a few suggestions below as to what can be fixed in this
block of text as you're making a pass over it.


> @@ -1327,9 +1327,9 @@ static void r5l_write_super_and_discard_space(struct r5l_log *log,
>  	 * superblock is updated to new log tail. Updating superblock (either
>  	 * directly call md_update_sb() or depend on md thread) must hold
>  	 * reconfig mutex. On the other hand, raid5_quiesce is called with
> -	 * reconfig_mutex hold. The first step of raid5_quiesce() is waitting
> -	 * for all IO finish, hence waitting for reclaim thread, while reclaim
> -	 * thread is calling this function and waitting for reconfig mutex. So
> +	 * reconfig_mutex hold. The first step of raid5_quiesce() is waiting

                          held

> +	 * for all IO finish, hence waiting for reclaim thread, while reclaim

              all IO to finish

> +	 * thread is calling this function and waiting for reconfig mutex. So
>  	 * there is a deadlock. We workaround this issue with a trylock.
>  	 * FIXME: we could miss discard if we can't take reconfig mutex
>  	 */

There are several mentions of 'reconfig mutex' that should probably be
'reconfig_mutex'. What's the correct way to refer to a mutex in comments
like the above?


Daniel K.