linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] drivers: gpu: drm: vmwgfx: fixed 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CABQX2QO0mPD3KYZYVk+cEr1z9o_cjRM9nct7piZhD4oJEm2hZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 00:18:17 -0500
From: Zack Rusin <zack.rusin@...adcom.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc: Ghanshyam Agrawal <ghanshyam1898@...il.com>, zackr@...are.com, 
	linux-graphics-maintainer@...are.com, maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, 
	mripard@...nel.org, tzimmermann@...e.de, airlied@...il.com, daniel@...ll.ch, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] drivers: gpu: drm: vmwgfx: fixed typos

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 1:21 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> Hi--
>
> On 12/14/23 22:01, Ghanshyam Agrawal wrote:
> > Fixed multiple typos in vmwgfx_execbuf.c
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ghanshyam Agrawal <ghanshyam1898@...il.com>
> > ---
> > V2:
> > Fixed some more typos suggested by codespell
> > and the community.
> >
> > V1:
> > Fixed multiple typos
> >
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_execbuf.c | 8 ++++----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_execbuf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_execbuf.c
> > index 36987ef3fc30..76aa72e8be73 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_execbuf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_execbuf.c
> > @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ struct vmw_ctx_validation_info {
> >   * @func: Call-back to handle the command.
> >   * @user_allow: Whether allowed from the execbuf ioctl.
> >   * @gb_disable: Whether disabled if guest-backed objects are available.
> > - * @gb_enable: Whether enabled iff guest-backed objects are available.
> > + * @gb_enable: Whether enabled if guest-backed objects are available.
>
> "iff" normally means "if and only if" and its use in the kernel sources is
> usually not a mistake. However, this one sounds dodgy to me (before your change),
> so it's OK IMO. Also, the line above it uses "if" for a similar comment.
>
> Maybe someone else knows better.

Right, this one was "iff". I submitted a version of this without the
iff change to drm-misc-next.
z