[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250315130030.6db07f89@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 13:00:30 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Suraj Patil <surajpatil522@...il.com>
Cc: lars@...afoo.de, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Suraj Patil <your-email@...mple.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: industrialio-trigger: Fix typos in comments
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 15:59:27 +0000
Suraj Patil <surajpatil522@...il.com> wrote:
> Fixed multiple occurrences of 'reenable' to 're-enable' in comments.
>
> Signed-off-by: Suraj Patil <your-email@...mple.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suraj Patil <surajpatil522@...il.com>
Please carefully read what your changes are before sending!
This obviously breaks the code.
Also don't take a code spell checker to literally.
reenable is fine here.
> ---
> drivers/iio/industrialio-trigger.c | 14 +++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/industrialio-trigger.c b/drivers/iio/industrialio-trigger.c
> index 54416a384232..21688cd348c6 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/industrialio-trigger.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/industrialio-trigger.c
> @@ -162,11 +162,11 @@ static void iio_reenable_work_fn(struct work_struct *work)
> * This 'might' occur after the trigger state is set to disabled -
> * in that case the driver should skip reenabling.
> */
> - trig->ops->reenable(trig);
> + trig->ops->re-enable(trig);
> }
>
> /*
> - * In general, reenable callbacks may need to sleep and this path is
> + * In general, re-enable callbacks may need to sleep and this path is
> * not performance sensitive, so just queue up a work item
> * to reneable the trigger for us.
> *
> @@ -175,14 +175,14 @@ static void iio_reenable_work_fn(struct work_struct *work)
> * the final decrement is still in this interrupt.
> * 2) The trigger has been removed, but one last interrupt gets through.
> *
> - * For (1) we must call reenable, but not in atomic context.
> + * For (1) we must call re-enable, but not in atomic context.
> * For (2) it should be safe to call reenanble, if drivers never blindly
> - * reenable after state is off.
> + * re-enable after state is off.
> */
> static void iio_trigger_notify_done_atomic(struct iio_trigger *trig)
> {
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&trig->use_count) && trig->ops &&
> - trig->ops->reenable)
> + trig->ops->re-enable)
> schedule_work(&trig->reenable_work);
> }
>
> @@ -243,8 +243,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(iio_trigger_poll_nested);
> void iio_trigger_notify_done(struct iio_trigger *trig)
> {
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&trig->use_count) && trig->ops &&
> - trig->ops->reenable)
> - trig->ops->reenable(trig);
> + trig->ops->re-enable)
> + trig->ops->re-enable(trig);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(iio_trigger_notify_done);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists