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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHP3+4DRJuEtxEXLLz1Z76ofPqd030sTmX5pQ+21jAFKQB9K_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 21:11:17 +0800
From: Jianyun Gao <jianyungao89@...il.com>
To: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Cc: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....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

Hi Phil,
I agree with you. As a non-native English speaker, I think both of
them(except or exempt) are acceptable.
So, do I still need to change "except" to "exempt"?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 8:30 PM Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> --
>