linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] md/raid5: 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPhsuW51y6dEVPs_WatXvXNnELk5UvvKkk8_kLrySUDP_OSUBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Aug 2022 10:44:09 -0700
From:   Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To:     XU pengfei <xupengfei@...china.com>
Cc:     linux-raid <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] md/raid5: Fix spelling mistakes in comments

On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 2:21 AM XU pengfei <xupengfei@...china.com> wrote:
>
> Fix spelling of 'waitting' in comments.
>
> Signed-off-by: XU pengfei <xupengfei@...china.com>

Applied to md-next.

Thanks,
Song

> ---
>  drivers/md/raid5-cache.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c b/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
> index f4e1cc1ece43..058d82e7fa13 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
> @@ -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
>          */
> --
> 2.18.2
>