Message-ID: <b5eca6ad-8974-4669-8ffa-0c6fd11fe06b@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 09:35:13 +0800
From: Li Lingfeng <lilingfeng3@...wei.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, <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


在 2025/4/19 20:39, Jeff Layton 写道:
> 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.
Hi Jeff,

Thank you for the feedback! I appreciate you taking the time to clarify
the policy around cosmetic changes. I wasn't fully aware of the
backporting implications, and I'll certainly keep this in mind for future
contributions. If I work on substantive changes in this area later, I'll
revisit the cleanup alongside those modifications.

Thanks again for the guidance!

Best regards,
Lingfeng

Powered by blists - more mailing lists