Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   XU pengfei <xupengfei@nfschina.com>
To:     song@kernel.org
Cc:     linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        XU pengfei <xupengfei@nfschina.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] md/raid5: Fix spelling mistakes in comments
Date:   Wed, 17 Aug 2022 17:21:40 +0800
Message-Id: <20220817092140.4252-1-xupengfei@nfschina.com>
Precedence: bulk

Fix spelling of 'waitting' in comments.

Signed-off-by: XU pengfei <xupengfei@nfschina.com>
---
 drivers/md/raid5-cache.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c b/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
index f4e1cc1ece43..058d82e7fa13 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
@@ -1327,9 +1327,9 @@ static void r5l_write_super_and_discard_space(struct r5l_log *log,
 	 * superblock is updated to new log tail. Updating superblock (either
 	 * directly call md_update_sb() or depend on md thread) must hold
 	 * reconfig mutex. On the other hand, raid5_quiesce is called with
-	 * reconfig_mutex hold. The first step of raid5_quiesce() is waitting
-	 * for all IO finish, hence waitting for reclaim thread, while reclaim
-	 * thread is calling this function and waitting for reconfig mutex. So
+	 * reconfig_mutex hold. The first step of raid5_quiesce() is waiting
+	 * for all IO finish, hence waiting for reclaim thread, while reclaim
+	 * thread is calling this function and waiting for reconfig mutex. So
 	 * there is a deadlock. We workaround this issue with a trylock.
 	 * FIXME: we could miss discard if we can't take reconfig mutex
 	 */
-- 
2.18.2