2019-07-29 08:17:28

by Mukesh Ojha

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] rcu: Fix spelling mistake "greate"->"great"

There is a spelling mistake in file tree_exp.h,
fix this.

Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <[email protected]>
---
kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
index af7e7b9..609fc87 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
@@ -781,7 +781,7 @@ static int rcu_print_task_exp_stall(struct rcu_node *rnp)
* other hand, if the CPU is not in an RCU read-side critical section,
* the IPI handler reports the quiescent state immediately.
*
- * Although this is a greate improvement over previous expedited
+ * Although this is a great improvement over previous expedited
* implementations, it is still unfriendly to real-time workloads, so is
* thus not recommended for any sort of common-case code. In fact, if
* you are using synchronize_rcu_expedited() in a loop, please restructure
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project


2019-07-30 18:06:18

by Paul E. McKenney

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Fix spelling mistake "greate"->"great"

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 01:25:57PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> There is a spelling mistake in file tree_exp.h,
> fix this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <[email protected]>

Queued, thank you very much!

Thanx, Paul

> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> index af7e7b9..609fc87 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> @@ -781,7 +781,7 @@ static int rcu_print_task_exp_stall(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> * other hand, if the CPU is not in an RCU read-side critical section,
> * the IPI handler reports the quiescent state immediately.
> *
> - * Although this is a greate improvement over previous expedited
> + * Although this is a great improvement over previous expedited
> * implementations, it is still unfriendly to real-time workloads, so is
> * thus not recommended for any sort of common-case code. In fact, if
> * you are using synchronize_rcu_expedited() in a loop, please restructure
> --
> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
> Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
>