linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: Fix spelling mistake 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 09:51:46 +0200
From:   Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
To:     Zhang Jiaming <jiaming@...china.com>
Cc:     linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        liqiong@...china.com, renyu@...china.com, song@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Fix spelling mistake in comments

Dear Zhang,


Thank you for your patch. Some nits.

Am 04.07.22 um 03:23 schrieb Zhang Jiaming:
> There are some typos(dones't, waitting) in comments.
> Fix it.

Please add a space before the (. “Fix it.” also fits on the line above, 
and maybe use plural in the commit message summary. For the body, maybe:

Fix spelling of dones't and waitting in comments.

> Signed-off-by: Zhang Jiaming <jiaming@...china.com>
> ---
>   drivers/md/raid5-cache.c | 8 ++++----
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c b/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
> index 83c184eddbda..4b799005eb6e 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
> @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ struct r5l_log {
>   					 * reclaimed.  if it's 0, reclaim spaces
>   					 * used by io_units which are in
>   					 * IO_UNIT_STRIPE_END state (eg, reclaim
> -					 * dones't wait for specific io_unit
> +					 * doesn't wait for specific io_unit
>   					 * switching to IO_UNIT_STRIPE_END
>   					 * state) */
>   	wait_queue_head_t iounit_wait;
> @@ -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
> +	 * for all IO finish, hence waiting for reclaim thread, while reclaim
> +	 * 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
>   	 */

Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>


Kind regards,

Paul