linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] blk-wbt: Cleanup a comment in wb_timer

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: <CACuPKx=th7OBma_fxSRYUWZtKyVR_11JOyguE5MdDR1YJQpVbw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:28:21 +0800
From: Tang Yizhou <yizhou.tang@...pee.com>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	"yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] blk-wbt: Cleanup a comment in wb_timer_fn

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 7:17 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 在 2025/02/13 18:06, Tang Yizhou 写道:
> > From: Tang Yizhou <yizhou.tang@...pee.com>
> >
> > The original comment contains a grammatical error. Rewrite it into a more
> > easily understandable sentence.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <yizhou.tang@...pee.com>
> > ---
> >   block/blk-wbt.c | 6 +++---
> >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Personally, I don't think this patch is necessary, people can still
> understand with this error. I'm not expecting a seperate patch :(
>
> Thanks,
> Kuai
>

Got it. Let's see if others have any suggestions.

Thanks,
Yi

> > diff --git a/block/blk-wbt.c b/block/blk-wbt.c
> > index 8b73c0c11aec..f1754d07f7e0 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-wbt.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-wbt.c
> > @@ -447,9 +447,9 @@ static void wb_timer_fn(struct blk_stat_callback *cb)
> >               break;
> >       case LAT_UNKNOWN_WRITES:
> >               /*
> > -              * We started a the center step, but don't have a valid
> > -              * read/write sample, but we do have writes going on.
> > -              * Allow step to go negative, to increase write perf.
> > +              * We don't have a valid read/write sample, but we do have
> > +              * writes going on. Allow step to go negative, to increase
> > +              * write performance.
> >                */
> >               scale_up(rwb);
> >               break;
> >
>