Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:50:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:50:54 -0500 Received: from [24.77.48.240] ([24.77.48.240]:24633 "EHLO aiinc.aiinc.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:50:48 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:01:09 -0800 From: Michael Hayes Message-Id: <200302260301.h1Q319N07257@aiinc.aiinc.ca> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH] Spelling fixes for 2.5.63 - ugliness Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5374 Lines: 106 This fixes: uglyness -> ugliness Fixes 8 occurrences in all. diff -ur a/drivers/net/irda/irda-usb.c b/drivers/net/irda/irda-usb.c --- a/drivers/net/irda/irda-usb.c Mon Feb 24 11:05:32 2003 +++ b/drivers/net/irda/irda-usb.c Tue Feb 25 18:11:58 2003 @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ /************************ TRANSMIT ROUTINES ************************/ /* * Receive packets from the IrDA stack and send them on the USB pipe. - * Handle speed change, timeout and lot's of uglyness... + * Handle speed change, timeout and lot's of ugliness... */ /*------------------------------------------------------------------*/ diff -ur a/include/asm-cris/uaccess.h b/include/asm-cris/uaccess.h --- a/include/asm-cris/uaccess.h Mon Feb 24 11:05:09 2003 +++ b/include/asm-cris/uaccess.h Tue Feb 25 18:12:01 2003 @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ * This gets kind of ugly. We want to return _two_ values in "get_user()" * and yet we don't want to do any pointers, because that is too much * of a performance impact. Thus we have a few rather ugly macros here, - * and hide all the uglyness from the user. + * and hide all the ugliness from the user. * * The "__xxx" versions of the user access functions are versions that * do not verify the address space, that must have been done previously diff -ur a/include/asm-i386/uaccess.h b/include/asm-i386/uaccess.h --- a/include/asm-i386/uaccess.h Mon Feb 24 11:05:10 2003 +++ b/include/asm-i386/uaccess.h Tue Feb 25 18:12:03 2003 @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ * This gets kind of ugly. We want to return _two_ values in "get_user()" * and yet we don't want to do any pointers, because that is too much * of a performance impact. Thus we have a few rather ugly macros here, - * and hide all the uglyness from the user. + * and hide all the ugliness from the user. * * The "__xxx" versions of the user access functions are versions that * do not verify the address space, that must have been done previously diff -ur a/include/asm-ppc/uaccess.h b/include/asm-ppc/uaccess.h --- a/include/asm-ppc/uaccess.h Mon Feb 24 11:05:05 2003 +++ b/include/asm-ppc/uaccess.h Tue Feb 25 18:12:07 2003 @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ * This gets kind of ugly. We want to return _two_ values in "get_user()" * and yet we don't want to do any pointers, because that is too much * of a performance impact. Thus we have a few rather ugly macros here, - * and hide all the uglyness from the user. + * and hide all the ugliness from the user. * * The "__xxx" versions of the user access functions are versions that * do not verify the address space, that must have been done previously diff -ur a/include/asm-ppc64/uaccess.h b/include/asm-ppc64/uaccess.h --- a/include/asm-ppc64/uaccess.h Mon Feb 24 11:05:32 2003 +++ b/include/asm-ppc64/uaccess.h Tue Feb 25 18:12:05 2003 @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ * This gets kind of ugly. We want to return _two_ values in "get_user()" * and yet we don't want to do any pointers, because that is too much * of a performance impact. Thus we have a few rather ugly macros here, - * and hide all the uglyness from the user. + * and hide all the ugliness from the user. * * The "__xxx" versions of the user access functions are versions that * do not verify the address space, that must have been done previously diff -ur a/include/asm-sparc/uaccess.h b/include/asm-sparc/uaccess.h --- a/include/asm-sparc/uaccess.h Mon Feb 24 11:05:43 2003 +++ b/include/asm-sparc/uaccess.h Tue Feb 25 18:12:12 2003 @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ * This gets kind of ugly. We want to return _two_ values in "get_user()" * and yet we don't want to do any pointers, because that is too much * of a performance impact. Thus we have a few rather ugly macros here, - * and hide all the uglyness from the user. + * and hide all the ugliness from the user. */ #define put_user(x,ptr) ({ \ unsigned long __pu_addr = (unsigned long)(ptr); \ diff -ur a/include/asm-sparc64/uaccess.h b/include/asm-sparc64/uaccess.h --- a/include/asm-sparc64/uaccess.h Mon Feb 24 11:05:17 2003 +++ b/include/asm-sparc64/uaccess.h Tue Feb 25 18:12:09 2003 @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ * This gets kind of ugly. We want to return _two_ values in "get_user()" * and yet we don't want to do any pointers, because that is too much * of a performance impact. Thus we have a few rather ugly macros here, - * and hide all the uglyness from the user. + * and hide all the ugliness from the user. */ #define put_user(x,ptr) ({ \ unsigned long __pu_addr = (unsigned long)(ptr); \ diff -ur a/include/asm-x86_64/uaccess.h b/include/asm-x86_64/uaccess.h --- a/include/asm-x86_64/uaccess.h Mon Feb 24 11:05:13 2003 +++ b/include/asm-x86_64/uaccess.h Tue Feb 25 18:12:17 2003 @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ * This gets kind of ugly. We want to return _two_ values in "get_user()" * and yet we don't want to do any pointers, because that is too much * of a performance impact. Thus we have a few rather ugly macros here, - * and hide all the uglyness from the user. + * and hide all the ugliness from the user. * * The "__xxx" versions of the user access functions are versions that * do not verify the address space, that must have been done previously - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/