debug_vm_pgtable.c: Fixed typo
internal.h: Fixed typo
memcontrol.c: Fixed typo
mmap.c: Fixed typo
Signed-off-by: Muhammad Muzammil <[email protected]>
---
mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c | 4 ++--
mm/internal.h | 2 +-
mm/memcontrol.c | 4 ++--
mm/mmap.c | 2 +-
4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c b/mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c
index 48e329ea5ba3..e651500e597a 100644
--- a/mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c
+++ b/mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c
@@ -1322,8 +1322,8 @@ static int __init debug_vm_pgtable(void)
* true irrespective of the starting protection value for a
* given page table entry.
*
- * Protection based vm_flags combinatins are always linear
- * and increasing i.e starting from VM_NONE and going upto
+ * Protection based vm_flags combinations are always linear
+ * and increasing i.e starting from VM_NONE and going up to
* (VM_SHARED | READ | WRITE | EXEC).
*/
#define VM_FLAGS_START (VM_NONE)
diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
index b52a526d239d..b61034bd50f5 100644
--- a/mm/internal.h
+++ b/mm/internal.h
@@ -601,7 +601,7 @@ extern bool mlock_future_ok(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long flags,
* range.
* "fully mapped" means all the pages of folio is associated with the page
* table of range while this function just check whether the folio range is
- * within the range [start, end). Funcation caller nees to do page table
+ * within the range [start, end). Function caller needs to do page table
* check if it cares about the page table association.
*
* Typical usage (like mlock or madvise) is:
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index be2ad117515e..7987a092e530 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -842,7 +842,7 @@ void __mod_memcg_lruvec_state(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum node_stat_item idx,
memcg = pn->memcg;
/*
- * The caller from rmap relay on disabled preemption becase they never
+ * The caller from rmap relay on disabled preemption because they never
* update their counter from in-interrupt context. For these two
* counters we check that the update is never performed from an
* interrupt context while other caller need to have disabled interrupt.
@@ -8104,7 +8104,7 @@ static struct cftype memsw_files[] = {
*
* This doesn't check for specific headroom, and it is not atomic
* either. But with zswap, the size of the allocation is only known
- * once compression has occured, and this optimistic pre-check avoids
+ * once compression has occurred, and this optimistic pre-check avoids
* spending cycles on compression when there is already no room left
* or zswap is disabled altogether somewhere in the hierarchy.
*/
diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
index b59f5e26b6fb..27539ffe2048 100644
--- a/mm/mmap.c
+++ b/mm/mmap.c
@@ -1223,7 +1223,7 @@ unsigned long do_mmap(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
* Does the application expect PROT_READ to imply PROT_EXEC?
*
* (the exception is when the underlying filesystem is noexec
- * mounted, in which case we dont add PROT_EXEC.)
+ * mounted, in which case we don't add PROT_EXEC.)
*/
if ((prot & PROT_READ) && (current->personality & READ_IMPLIES_EXEC))
if (!(file && path_noexec(&file->f_path)))
--
2.27.0
Hi,
On 10/14/23 05:33, Muhammad Muzammil wrote:
> debug_vm_pgtable.c: Fixed typo
> internal.h: Fixed typo
> memcontrol.c: Fixed typo
> mmap.c: Fixed typo
>
> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Muzammil <[email protected]>
These all look good to me. Thanks.
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
One comment below:
> ---
> mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c | 4 ++--
> mm/internal.h | 2 +-
> mm/memcontrol.c | 4 ++--
> mm/mmap.c | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c b/mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c
> index 48e329ea5ba3..e651500e597a 100644
> --- a/mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c
> +++ b/mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c
> @@ -1322,8 +1322,8 @@ static int __init debug_vm_pgtable(void)
> * true irrespective of the starting protection value for a
> * given page table entry.
> *
> - * Protection based vm_flags combinatins are always linear
> - * and increasing i.e starting from VM_NONE and going upto
> + * Protection based vm_flags combinations are always linear
> + * and increasing i.e starting from VM_NONE and going up to
> * (VM_SHARED | READ | WRITE | EXEC).
> */
> #define VM_FLAGS_START (VM_NONE)
> diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> index b52a526d239d..b61034bd50f5 100644
> --- a/mm/internal.h
> +++ b/mm/internal.h
> @@ -601,7 +601,7 @@ extern bool mlock_future_ok(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long flags,
> * range.
> * "fully mapped" means all the pages of folio is associated with the page
> * table of range while this function just check whether the folio range is
> - * within the range [start, end). Funcation caller nees to do page table
> + * within the range [start, end). Function caller needs to do page table
> * check if it cares about the page table association.
> *
> * Typical usage (like mlock or madvise) is:
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index be2ad117515e..7987a092e530 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -842,7 +842,7 @@ void __mod_memcg_lruvec_state(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum node_stat_item idx,
> memcg = pn->memcg;
>
> /*
> - * The caller from rmap relay on disabled preemption becase they never
> + * The caller from rmap relay on disabled preemption because they never
> * update their counter from in-interrupt context. For these two
I don't know what that (partial) sentence is trying to say...
Maybe someone else does.
> * counters we check that the update is never performed from an
> * interrupt context while other caller need to have disabled interrupt.
> @@ -8104,7 +8104,7 @@ static struct cftype memsw_files[] = {
> *
> * This doesn't check for specific headroom, and it is not atomic
> * either. But with zswap, the size of the allocation is only known
> - * once compression has occured, and this optimistic pre-check avoids
> + * once compression has occurred, and this optimistic pre-check avoids
> * spending cycles on compression when there is already no room left
> * or zswap is disabled altogether somewhere in the hierarchy.
> */
> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> index b59f5e26b6fb..27539ffe2048 100644
> --- a/mm/mmap.c
> +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> @@ -1223,7 +1223,7 @@ unsigned long do_mmap(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
> * Does the application expect PROT_READ to imply PROT_EXEC?
> *
> * (the exception is when the underlying filesystem is noexec
> - * mounted, in which case we dont add PROT_EXEC.)
> + * mounted, in which case we don't add PROT_EXEC.)
> */
> if ((prot & PROT_READ) && (current->personality & READ_IMPLIES_EXEC))
> if (!(file && path_noexec(&file->f_path)))
--
~Randy
On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 08:31:35AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > /*
> > - * The caller from rmap relay on disabled preemption becase they never
> > + * The caller from rmap relay on disabled preemption because they never
> > * update their counter from in-interrupt context. For these two
>
> I don't know what that (partial) sentence is trying to say...
> Maybe someone else does.
s/relay/rely/
On 10/14/23 08:45, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 08:31:35AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> /*
>>> - * The caller from rmap relay on disabled preemption becase they never
>>> + * The caller from rmap relay on disabled preemption because they never
>>> * update their counter from in-interrupt context. For these two
>>
>> I don't know what that (partial) sentence is trying to say...
>> Maybe someone else does.
>
> s/relay/rely/
Duh. Thanks.
So either:
+ * The callers from rmap rely on disabled preemption because they never
or
+ * The caller from rmap relies on disabled preemption because they never
but the entire paragraph still needs some care IMO.
--
~Randy
On Sat, 2023-10-14 at 16:45 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 08:31:35AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > /*
> > > - * The caller from rmap relay on disabled preemption
> > > becase they never
> > > + * The caller from rmap relay on disabled preemption
> > > because they never
> > > * update their counter from in-interrupt context. For
> > > these two
> >
> > I don't know what that (partial) sentence is trying to say...
> > Maybe someone else does.
>
> s/relay/rely/
relies, surely, being the correct third person singular form of the
verb to match the nominative noun "the caller".
James
should I create the v2 or this patch is fine?
On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 9:27 PM James Bottomley
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2023-10-14 at 16:45 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 08:31:35AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > /*
> > > > - * The caller from rmap relay on disabled preemption
> > > > becase they never
> > > > + * The caller from rmap relay on disabled preemption
> > > > because they never
> > > > * update their counter from in-interrupt context. For
> > > > these two
> > >
> > > I don't know what that (partial) sentence is trying to say...
> > > Maybe someone else does.
> >
> > s/relay/rely/
>
> relies, surely, being the correct third person singular form of the
> verb to match the nominative noun "the caller".
>
> James
>
On Sun, 2023-10-15 at 10:45 +0500, Muhammad Muzammil wrote:
> should I create the v2 or this patch is fine?
Personally, I don't think anyone cares about misspellings unless it
obscures the meaning of the sentence, so, given the interactions in
this thread, I'd argue the only one really worth fixing is relay ->
relies.
James
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 9:27 PM James Bottomley
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2023-10-14 at 16:45 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 08:31:35AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > > /*
> > > > > - * The caller from rmap relay on disabled preemption
> > > > > becase they never
> > > > > + * The caller from rmap relay on disabled preemption
> > > > > because they never
> > > > > * update their counter from in-interrupt context.
> > > > > For
> > > > > these two
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what that (partial) sentence is trying to say...
> > > > Maybe someone else does.
> > >
> > > s/relay/rely/
> >
> > relies, surely, being the correct third person singular form of the
> > verb to match the nominative noun "the caller".
> >
> > James
> >
>
Can anyone approve this patch?
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 7:27 AM James Bottomley
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2023-10-15 at 10:45 +0500, Muhammad Muzammil wrote:
> > should I create the v2 or this patch is fine?
>
> Personally, I don't think anyone cares about misspellings unless it
> obscures the meaning of the sentence, so, given the interactions in
> this thread, I'd argue the only one really worth fixing is relay ->
> relies.
>
> James
>
>
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 9:27 PM James Bottomley
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2023-10-14 at 16:45 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 08:31:35AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > - * The caller from rmap relay on disabled preemption
> > > > > > becase they never
> > > > > > + * The caller from rmap relay on disabled preemption
> > > > > > because they never
> > > > > > * update their counter from in-interrupt context.
> > > > > > For
> > > > > > these two
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know what that (partial) sentence is trying to say...
> > > > > Maybe someone else does.
> > > >
> > > > s/relay/rely/
> > >
> > > relies, surely, being the correct third person singular form of the
> > > verb to match the nominative noun "the caller".
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> >
>
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 04:08:49PM +0500, Muhammad Muzammil wrote:
> Can anyone approve this patch?
Please send a v2 with the rely -> relies fix included.
I have sent the v2 patch. Thanks
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 5:23 PM Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 04:08:49PM +0500, Muhammad Muzammil wrote:
> > Can anyone approve this patch?
>
> Please send a v2 with the rely -> relies fix included.