linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: Fix comment typos and grammatical errors

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: <8c50079d7ca3dc0f47b913ebf82d6ab50605a044.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 08:39:51 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To: Li Lingfeng <lilingfeng3@...wei.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, 
	brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, chuck.lever@...cle.com,
 alex.aring@...il.com, 	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: yukuai1@...weicloud.com, houtao1@...wei.com, yi.zhang@...wei.com, 
	yangerkun@...wei.com, lilingfeng@...weicloud.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Fix comment typos and grammatical errors

On Sat, 2025-04-19 at 16:55 +0800, Li Lingfeng wrote:
> This patch does minor comment cleanup:
> - Fix spelling mistakes (e.g. "silibing" -> "sibling")
> - Correct grammatical errors
> No functional changes involved.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Li Lingfeng <lilingfeng3@...wei.com>
> ---
>  fs/locks.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index 1619cddfa7a4..f06258216b31 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
>   * If multiple threads attempt to lock the same byte (or flock the same file)
>   * only one can be granted the lock, and other must wait their turn.
>   * The first lock has been "applied" or "granted", the others are "waiting"
> - * and are "blocked" by the "applied" lock..
> + * and are "blocked" by the "applied" lock.
>   *
>   * Waiting and applied locks are all kept in trees whose properties are:
>   *
> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
>   * waiting for the lock so it can continue handling as follows: if the
>   * root of the tree applies, we do so (3).  If it doesn't, it must
>   * conflict with some applied lock.  We remove (wake up) all of its children
> - * (2), and add it is a new leaf to the tree rooted in the applied
> + * (2), and add it as a new leaf to the tree rooted in the applied
>   * lock (1).  We then repeat the process recursively with those
>   * children.
>   *
> @@ -1327,7 +1327,7 @@ static int posix_lock_inode(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request,
>  	 * replacing. If new lock(s) need to be inserted all modifications are
>  	 * done below this, so it's safe yet to bail out.
>  	 */
> -	error = -ENOLCK; /* "no luck" */
> +	error = -ENOLCK; /* "no lock" */

FWIW, I think that the above is intended as a joke in English. "Lock"
and "luck" sound similar, so this is telling you that you just got
unlucky in this case and have no locking.

>  	if (right && left == right && !new_fl2)
>  		goto out;
>  
> @@ -2862,7 +2862,7 @@ static int locks_show(struct seq_file *f, void *v)
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	/* View this crossed linked list as a binary tree, the first member of flc_blocked_requests
> -	 * is the left child of current node, the next silibing in flc_blocked_member is the
> +	 * is the left child of current node, the next sibling in flc_blocked_member is the
>  	 * right child, we can alse get the parent of current node from flc_blocker, so this
>  	 * question becomes traversal of a binary tree
>  	 */

Typically, we don't take cosmetic cleanup patches unless they are
accompanied with substantive changes. If you're working in this area on
real code changes and want to clean up a comment, then go for it, but
otherwise this sort of change tends to make backporting more difficult
later.
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>