linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/mutex: fix documentation spelling mistakes

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: <ZfF+a4ZpEBjxmXtt@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:22:35 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Yuu Lee <379943137@...com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org,
	longman@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, trivial@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/mutex: fix documentation spelling mistakes


* Yuu Lee <379943137@...com> wrote:

> fix 'task_strcut' to 'task_struct'
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yuu Lee <379943137@...com>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/mutex.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index cbae8c0b8..82d19846e 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -362,7 +362,7 @@ bool mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner,
>  		 * checking lock->owner still matches owner. And we already
>  		 * disabled preemption which is equal to the RCU read-side
>  		 * crital section in optimistic spinning code. Thus the
> -		 * task_strcut structure won't go away during the spinning
> +		 * task_struct structure won't go away during the spinning
>  		 * period
>  		 */
>  		barrier();
> @@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock)
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * We already disabled preemption which is equal to the RCU read-side
> -	 * crital section in optimistic spinning code. Thus the task_strcut
> +	 * crital section in optimistic spinning code. Thus the task_struct
>  	 * structure won't go away during the spinning period.

There's another typo here, which you might as well fix?

Thanks,

	Ingo