s/sempahore/semaphore/
s/exacly/exactly/
s/unregistred/unregistered/
s/interation/iteration/
Signed-off-by: Bhaskar Chowdhury <[email protected]>
---
kernel/printk/printk.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
index 575a34b88936..95d31886e0d7 100644
--- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
+++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
@@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ static void __up_console_sem(unsigned long ip)
* definitely not the perfect debug tool (we don't know if _WE_
* hold it and are racing, but it helps tracking those weird code
* paths in the console code where we end up in places I want
- * locked without the console sempahore held).
+ * locked without the console semaphore held).
*/
static int console_locked, console_suspended;
@@ -2262,7 +2262,7 @@ static int __init console_setup(char *str)
/*
* console="" or console=null have been suggested as a way to
* disable console output. Use ttynull that has been created
- * for exacly this purpose.
+ * for exactly this purpose.
*/
if (str[0] == 0 || strcmp(str, "null") == 0) {
__add_preferred_console("ttynull", 0, NULL, NULL, true);
@@ -3042,7 +3042,7 @@ void __init console_init(void)
*
* To mitigate this problem somewhat, only unregister consoles whose memory
* intersects with the init section. Note that all other boot consoles will
- * get unregistred when the real preferred console is registered.
+ * get unregistered when the real preferred console is registered.
*/
static int __init printk_late_init(void)
{
@@ -3467,7 +3467,7 @@ bool kmsg_dump_get_buffer(struct kmsg_dumper *dumper, bool syslog,
seq = r.info->seq + 1;
}
- /* last message in next interation */
+ /* last message in next iteration */
next_seq = seq;
/* actually read text into the buffer now */
--
2.26.2
On Sun 2021-03-28 10:09:32, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:
>
> s/sempahore/semaphore/
> s/exacly/exactly/
> s/unregistred/unregistered/
> s/interation/iteration/
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Bhaskar Chowdhury <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <[email protected]>
John,
it conflicts with the patchset removing printk safe buffers[1].
Would you prefer to queue this into the patchset?
Or should I push it into printk/linux.git, printk-rework and you would
base v2 on top of it?
Best Regards,
Petr
On 2021-03-30, Petr Mladek <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun 2021-03-28 10:09:32, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:
>>
>> s/sempahore/semaphore/
>> s/exacly/exactly/
>> s/unregistred/unregistered/
>> s/interation/iteration/
>>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bhaskar Chowdhury <[email protected]>
>
> Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <[email protected]>
>
> John,
>
> it conflicts with the patchset removing printk safe buffers[1].
> Would you prefer to queue this into the patchset?
> Or should I push it into printk/linux.git, printk-rework and you would
> base v2 on top of it?
Go ahead and push it to printk-rework. I'll base v2 on top of it.
Thanks.
John
On Tue 2021-03-30 14:53:52, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2021-03-30, Petr Mladek <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sun 2021-03-28 10:09:32, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:
> >>
> >> s/sempahore/semaphore/
> >> s/exacly/exactly/
> >> s/unregistred/unregistered/
> >> s/interation/iteration/
> >>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Bhaskar Chowdhury <[email protected]>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <[email protected]>
> >
> > John,
> >
> > it conflicts with the patchset removing printk safe buffers[1].
> > Would you prefer to queue this into the patchset?
> > Or should I push it into printk/linux.git, printk-rework and you would
> > base v2 on top of it?
>
> Go ahead and push it to printk-rework. I'll base v2 on top of it.
The patch is committed in printk/linux.git, branch printk-rework.
It is queued for 5.13.
Best Regards,
Petr