linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 8/8] zram: correct typos

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, 17 Oct 2022 17:08:44 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Cc:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 8/8] zram: correct typos

On Sun,  9 Oct 2022 18:07:20 +0900 Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org> wrote:

> Trivial comment typos fixes.
> 
> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> @@ -759,7 +759,7 @@ static ssize_t writeback_store(struct device *dev,
>  			zram_slot_unlock(zram, index);
>  			/*
>  			 * Return last IO error unless every IO were
> -			 * not suceeded.
> +			 * not succeeded.

That's a pretty awkward sentence.  Why not "unless every IO failed".

If that's indeed what we're doing here.  Sounds odd.  What do we return
if all IOs indeed failed?