| Message ID | 20220629144301.9308-1-korantwork@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | io_uring: fix a typo in comment | expand |
On 6/29/22 8:43 AM, korantwork@gmail.com wrote: > From: Xinghui Li <korantli@tencent.com> > > fix a typo in comment in io_allocate_scq_urings. > sane -> same. > > Signed-off-by: Xinghui Li <korantli@tencent.com> > --- > fs/io_uring.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c > index d3ee4fc532fa..af17adf3fa79 100644 > --- a/fs/io_uring.c > +++ b/fs/io_uring.c > @@ -12284,7 +12284,7 @@ static __cold int io_allocate_scq_urings(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, > struct io_rings *rings; > size_t size, sq_array_offset; > > - /* make sure these are sane, as we already accounted them */ > + /* make sure these are same, as we already accounted them */ > ctx->sq_entries = p->sq_entries; > ctx->cq_entries = p->cq_entries; That's not really a typo, though I can see why you'd think so. It's trying to say that we need to ensure that the ctx entries are sane, as they have already been accounted. This means that if we teardown past this point, they need to be assigned (eg sane) so that we undo that accounting appropriately.
On 2022/6/29 22:46，“Jens Axboe”<axboe@kernel.dk> wrote: > > On 6/29/22 8:43 AM, korantwork@gmail.com wrote: > > From: Xinghui Li <korantli@tencent.com> > > > > fix a typo in comment in io_allocate_scq_urings. > > sane -> same. > > > > Signed-off-by: Xinghui Li <korantli@tencent.com> > > --- > > fs/io_uring.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c > > index d3ee4fc532fa..af17adf3fa79 100644 > > --- a/fs/io_uring.c > > +++ b/fs/io_uring.c > > @@ -12284,7 +12284,7 @@ static __cold int io_allocate_scq_urings(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, > > struct io_rings *rings; > > size_t size, sq_array_offset; > > > > - /* make sure these are sane, as we already accounted them */ > > + /* make sure these are same, as we already accounted them */ > > ctx->sq_entries = p->sq_entries; > > ctx->cq_entries = p->cq_entries; > That's not really a typo, though I can see why you'd think so. It's > trying to say that we need to ensure that the ctx entries are sane, > as they have already been accounted. This means that if we teardown > past this point, they need to be assigned (eg sane) so that we undo > that accounting appropriately. Thanks a lot for your reply and I am sorry about wasting your effort. I will try to submit some valuable patches. : - )
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c index d3ee4fc532fa..af17adf3fa79 100644 --- a/fs/io_uring.c +++ b/fs/io_uring.c @@ -12284,7 +12284,7 @@ static __cold int io_allocate_scq_urings(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct io_rings *rings; size_t size, sq_array_offset; - /* make sure these are sane, as we already accounted them */ + /* make sure these are same, as we already accounted them */ ctx->sq_entries = p->sq_entries; ctx->cq_entries = p->cq_entries;