netdev - Re: [V2][PATCH] atm: horizon: Fix spelling mistakes in TX comment

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]

Date:   Sun, 8 Aug 2021 07:33:02 +0800
From:   Jun Miao <jun.miao@...driver.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, 3chas3@...il.com
Cc:     linux-atm-general@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [V2][PATCH] atm: horizon: Fix spelling mistakes in TX comment


On 8/8/21 12:58 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> [Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]
>
> On Sat, 2021-08-07 at 23:38 +0800, Jun Miao wrote:
>> It's "must not", not "musn't", meaning "shall not".
>> Let's fix that.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jun Miao <jun.miao@...driver.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/atm/horizon.c | 6 +++---
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/atm/horizon.c b/drivers/atm/horizon.c
>> index 4f2951cbe69c..9ee494bc5c51 100644
>> --- a/drivers/atm/horizon.c
>> +++ b/drivers/atm/horizon.c
>> @@ -2167,10 +2167,10 @@ static int hrz_open (struct atm_vcc *atm_vcc)
>>
>>
>>     // Part of the job is done by atm_pcr_goal which gives us a PCR
>>     // specification which says: EITHER grab the maximum available PCR
>> -  // (and perhaps a lower bound which we musn't pass), OR grab this
>> +  // (and perhaps a lower bound which we mustn't pass), OR grab this
> I meant to suggest you change the patch to use "must not" not
> the commit message.

Please ignore this e-mail. Sorry, confuse the mailing list.

I am so careless to forget change there. After this 2 minutest, i send 
new  same V2(in fact should v3 but forgive for a freshman)

>>     // amount, rounding down if you have to (and perhaps a lower bound
>> -  // which we musn't pass) OR grab this amount, rounding up if you
>> -  // have to (and perhaps an upper bound which we musn't pass). If any
>> +  // which we mustn't pass) OR grab this amount, rounding up if you
>> +  // have to (and perhaps an upper bound which we mustn't pass). If any
>>     // bounds ARE passed we fail. Note that rounding is only rounding to
>>     // match device limitations, we do not round down to satisfy
>>     // bandwidth availability even if this would not violate any given
>