s/reponsible/responsible/
Signed-off-by: Bhaskar Chowdhury <[email protected]>
---
fs/btrfs/scrub.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
index 3d9088eab2fc..14de898967bf 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
@@ -2426,7 +2426,7 @@ static void drop_csum_range(struct scrub_ctx *sctx, struct btrfs_ordered_sum *su
* the csum into @csum.
*
* The search source is sctx->csum_list, which is a pre-populated list
- * storing bytenr ordered csum ranges. We're reponsible to cleanup any range
+ * storing bytenr ordered csum ranges. We're responsible to cleanup any range
* that is before @logical.
*
* Return 0 if there is no csum for the range.
--
2.26.2
On 2021/03/26 10:02, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:
>
> s/reponsible/responsible/
>
> Signed-off-by: Bhaskar Chowdhury <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/scrub.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> index 3d9088eab2fc..14de898967bf 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> @@ -2426,7 +2426,7 @@ static void drop_csum_range(struct scrub_ctx *sctx, struct btrfs_ordered_sum *su
> * the csum into @csum.
> *
> * The search source is sctx->csum_list, which is a pre-populated list
> - * storing bytenr ordered csum ranges. We're reponsible to cleanup any range
> + * storing bytenr ordered csum ranges. We're responsible to cleanup any range
If you are at fixing typos, you may as well fix the grammar at the same time :)
We're responsible to cleanup... -> We're responsible for cleaning up...
> * that is before @logical.
> *
> * Return 0 if there is no csum for the range.
> --
> 2.26.2
>
>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 06:29:32AM +0530, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:
>
> s/reponsible/responsible/
So this is exactly what I don't want to see happen - one patch per typo.
I tried to explain it in the previous patch, please either fix all typos
under fs/btrfs or don't bother.
On 14:47 Fri 26 Mar 2021, David Sterba wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 06:29:32AM +0530, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:
>>
>> s/reponsible/responsible/
>
>So this is exactly what I don't want to see happen - one patch per typo.
>I tried to explain it in the previous patch, please either fix all typos
>under fs/btrfs or don't bother.
As I mentioned in my previous correspondence to , I have my way of doing thing
. The problem is , you are getting accustomed with some specific method and
you are thinking that is the "only way" of doing the "right thing" . Please ,
think others are also think in different way too.
The goal to make it looks good and productive...don't you think so???
..and I said I do bother ,it's just not about this specific segment but about
the whole kernel.
Or is it some sort of special flow brtfs subsystem are following , which I am
not aware off??
Please do let me.