linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] 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]

Message-ID: <CAPhsuW6H6Gyazn4o23UeYhfWtTFqcvw9dqS=Aqjpjf1o1qdMrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Aug 2022 10:59:33 -0700
From:   Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To:     Zhang Jiaming <jiaming@...china.com>
Cc:     linux-raid <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, d@...vu,
        liqiong@...china.com, renyu@...china.com,
        Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: Fix spelling mistakes in comments

On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 7:26 PM Zhang Jiaming <jiaming@...china.com> wrote:
>
> Fix spelling of dones't and waitting in comments.
> Fix tense mistakes of hold and finsh in comments.
> Use underline to connecting reconfig and mutex.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Jiaming <jiaming@...china.com>
> Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>

Sorry for getting on this late.

AFAICT, this one doesn't apply any more (conflict with some of your
other fixes). Could you please resend?

Thanks,
Song

> ---
>  drivers/md/raid5-cache.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c b/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
> index 83c184eddbda..8d5154d94f86 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;
> @@ -1326,12 +1326,12 @@ static void r5l_write_super_and_discard_space(struct r5l_log *log,
>          * Discard could zero data, so before discard we must make sure
>          * 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. On the other hand, raid5_quiesce is called with
> +        * reconfig_mutex held. The first step of raid5_quiesce() is waiting
> +        * for all IO to 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
> +        * FIXME: we could miss discard if we can't take reconfig_mutex
>          */
>         set_mask_bits(&mddev->sb_flags, 0,
>                 BIT(MD_SB_CHANGE_DEVS) | BIT(MD_SB_CHANGE_PENDING));
> --
> 2.34.1
>