linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched: Fix some spelling mistakes in the scheduler module

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: <20250930122959.GA87275@pauld.westford.csb>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 08:29:59 -0400
From: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
Cc: Jianyun Gao <jianyungao89@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: Fix some spelling mistakes in the scheduler
 module

On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 09:26:59AM +0100 Christian Loehle wrote:
> On 9/29/25 07:12, Jianyun Gao wrote:
> > From: "jianyun.gao" <jianyungao89@...il.com>
> > 
> > The following are some spelling mistakes existing in the scheduler
> > module. Just fix it!
> > 
> >   slection -> selection
> >   achitectures -> architectures
> >   excempt -> except
> >   incorectly -> incorrectly
> >   litle -> little
> >   faireness -> fairness
> >   condtion -> condition
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: jianyun.gao <jianyungao89@...il.com>
> > ---
> > V2:
> > Delete the incorrect modifications for "borken" in V1.
> > The previous version is here:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250926092832.1457477-1-jianyungao89@gmail.com/
> > 
> >  kernel/sched/core.c     | 2 +-
> >  kernel/sched/cputime.c  | 2 +-
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c     | 8 ++++----
> >  kernel/sched/wait_bit.c | 2 +-
> >  4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 7f1e5cb94c53..af5076e40567 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -6858,7 +6858,7 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(int sched_mode)
> >  		/*
> >  		 * We pass task_is_blocked() as the should_block arg
> >  		 * in order to keep mutex-blocked tasks on the runqueue
> > -		 * for slection with proxy-exec (without proxy-exec
> > +		 * for selection with proxy-exec (without proxy-exec
> >  		 * task_is_blocked() will always be false).
> >  		 */
> >  		try_to_block_task(rq, prev, &prev_state,
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cputime.c b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> > index 7097de2c8cda..2429be5a5e40 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> > @@ -585,7 +585,7 @@ void cputime_adjust(struct task_cputime *curr, struct prev_cputime *prev,
> >  	stime = mul_u64_u64_div_u64(stime, rtime, stime + utime);
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Because mul_u64_u64_div_u64() can approximate on some
> > -	 * achitectures; enforce the constraint that: a*b/(b+c) <= a.
> > +	 * architectures; enforce the constraint that: a*b/(b+c) <= a.
> >  	 */
> >  	if (unlikely(stime > rtime))
> >  		stime = rtime;
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 18a30ae35441..20fe5899b247 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -5381,7 +5381,7 @@ dequeue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se, int flags)
> >  		bool delay = sleep;
> >  		/*
> >  		 * DELAY_DEQUEUE relies on spurious wakeups, special task
> > -		 * states must not suffer spurious wakeups, excempt them.
> > +		 * states must not suffer spurious wakeups, except them.
> 
> This should be exempt, no?
> 

I had the same thought then decded that "except" as a verb worked too.
We are making an exception for the special states, right? I think either
works, but not both at once :) 

But that said, I'm not sure we should bother as these don't seem to
effect the meaning (at least to me as a native 'merican speaker). 

Cheers,
Phil



--