block: Fix spelling mistakes in comments

Commit Message

Zhang Jiaming July 4, 2022, 10:05 a.m. UTC

Fix spelling of dones't and waitting in comments.

Signed-off-by: Zhang Jiaming <[e-mail]>
Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <[e-mail]>
---
 drivers/md/raid5-cache.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Daniel K. July 4, 2022, 6:01 p.m. UTC | #1

On 7/4/22 10:05, Zhang Jiaming wrote:
> Fix spelling of dones't and waitting in comments.

Version your patches, you're now at v2. [PATCH v2] ...

Please find a few suggestions below as to what can be fixed in this
block of text as you're making a pass over it.


> @@ -1327,9 +1327,9 @@ static void r5l_write_super_and_discard_space(struct r5l_log *log,
>  	 * superblock is updated to new log tail. Updating superblock (either
>  	 * directly call md_update_sb() or depend on md thread) must hold
>  	 * reconfig mutex. On the other hand, raid5_quiesce is called with
> -	 * reconfig_mutex hold. The first step of raid5_quiesce() is waitting
> -	 * for all IO finish, hence waitting for reclaim thread, while reclaim
> -	 * thread is calling this function and waitting for reconfig mutex. So
> +	 * reconfig_mutex hold. The first step of raid5_quiesce() is waiting

                          held

> +	 * for all IO finish, hence waiting for reclaim thread, while reclaim

              all IO to finish

> +	 * thread is calling this function and waiting for reconfig mutex. So
>  	 * there is a deadlock. We workaround this issue with a trylock.
>  	 * FIXME: we could miss discard if we can't take reconfig mutex
>  	 */

There are several mentions of 'reconfig mutex' that should probably be
'reconfig_mutex'. What's the correct way to refer to a mutex in comments
like the above?


Daniel K.

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c b/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
index 83c184eddbda..4b799005eb6e 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@  struct r5l_log {
 					 * reclaimed.  if it's 0, reclaim spaces
 					 * used by io_units which are in
 					 * IO_UNIT_STRIPE_END state (eg, reclaim
-					 * dones't wait for specific io_unit
+					 * doesn't wait for specific io_unit
 					 * switching to IO_UNIT_STRIPE_END
 					 * state) */
 	wait_queue_head_t iounit_wait;
@@ -1327,9 +1327,9 @@  static void r5l_write_super_and_discard_space(struct r5l_log *log,
 	 * superblock is updated to new log tail. Updating superblock (either
 	 * directly call md_update_sb() or depend on md thread) must hold
 	 * reconfig mutex. On the other hand, raid5_quiesce is called with
-	 * reconfig_mutex hold. The first step of raid5_quiesce() is waitting
-	 * for all IO finish, hence waitting for reclaim thread, while reclaim
-	 * thread is calling this function and waitting for reconfig mutex. So
+	 * reconfig_mutex hold. The first step of raid5_quiesce() is waiting
+	 * for all IO finish, hence waiting for reclaim thread, while reclaim
+	 * thread is calling this function and waiting for reconfig mutex. So
 	 * there is a deadlock. We workaround this issue with a trylock.
 	 * FIXME: we could miss discard if we can't take reconfig mutex
 	 */