Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-101337-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Sender: Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:22:35 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Yuu Lee <379943137@qq.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org,
	longman@redhat.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, trivial@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/mutex: fix documentation spelling mistakes
Message-ID: <ZfF+a4ZpEBjxmXtt@gmail.com>
References: <tencent_8E6B496F6B4EC012379A594046F8880B3D08@qq.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <tencent_8E6B496F6B4EC012379A594046F8880B3D08@qq.com>


* Yuu Lee <379943137@qq.com> wrote:

> fix 'task_strcut' to 'task_struct'
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yuu Lee <379943137@qq.com>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/mutex.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index cbae8c0b8..82d19846e 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -362,7 +362,7 @@ bool mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner,
>  		 * checking lock->owner still matches owner. And we already
>  		 * disabled preemption which is equal to the RCU read-side
>  		 * crital section in optimistic spinning code. Thus the
> -		 * task_strcut structure won't go away during the spinning
> +		 * task_struct structure won't go away during the spinning
>  		 * period
>  		 */
>  		barrier();
> @@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock)
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * We already disabled preemption which is equal to the RCU read-side
> -	 * crital section in optimistic spinning code. Thus the task_strcut
> +	 * crital section in optimistic spinning code. Thus the task_struct
>  	 * structure won't go away during the spinning period.

There's another typo here, which you might as well fix?

Thanks,

	Ingo