'ext3_get_branch' should be 'ext2_get_branch'.
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]>
---
fs/ext2/inode.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext2/inode.c b/fs/ext2/inode.c
index 940c961..860d715 100644
--- a/fs/ext2/inode.c
+++ b/fs/ext2/inode.c
@@ -662,7 +662,7 @@ static int ext2_get_blocks(struct inode *inode,
mutex_lock(&ei->truncate_mutex);
/*
* If the indirect block is missing while we are reading
- * the chain(ext3_get_branch() returns -EAGAIN err), or
+ * the chain(ext2_get_branch() returns -EAGAIN err), or
* if the chain has been changed after we grab the semaphore,
* (either because another process truncated this branch, or
* another get_block allocated this branch) re-grab the chain to see if
--
1.7.2.2
'excpet' should be 'except'.
'ext3_get_branch' should be 'ext2_get_branch'.
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]>
---
I found another one.
diff --git a/fs/ext2/inode.c b/fs/ext2/inode.c
index 940c961..533699c 100644
--- a/fs/ext2/inode.c
+++ b/fs/ext2/inode.c
@@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ failed_out:
* the same format as ext2_get_branch() would do. We are calling it after
* we had read the existing part of chain and partial points to the last
* triple of that (one with zero ->key). Upon the exit we have the same
- * picture as after the successful ext2_get_block(), excpet that in one
+ * picture as after the successful ext2_get_block(), except that in one
* place chain is disconnected - *branch->p is still zero (we did not
* set the last link), but branch->key contains the number that should
* be placed into *branch->p to fill that gap.
@@ -662,7 +662,7 @@ static int ext2_get_blocks(struct inode *inode,
mutex_lock(&ei->truncate_mutex);
/*
* If the indirect block is missing while we are reading
- * the chain(ext3_get_branch() returns -EAGAIN err), or
+ * the chain(ext2_get_branch() returns -EAGAIN err), or
* if the chain has been changed after we grab the semaphore,
* (either because another process truncated this branch, or
* another get_block allocated this branch) re-grab the chain to see if
--
1.7.2.2
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> 'excpet' should be 'except'.
> 'ext3_get_branch' should be 'ext2_get_branch'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]>
> ---
> I found another one.
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext2/inode.c b/fs/ext2/inode.c
> index 940c961..533699c 100644
> --- a/fs/ext2/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext2/inode.c
> @@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ failed_out:
> * the same format as ext2_get_branch() would do. We are calling it after
> * we had read the existing part of chain and partial points to the last
> * triple of that (one with zero ->key). Upon the exit we have the same
> - * picture as after the successful ext2_get_block(), excpet that in one
> + * picture as after the successful ext2_get_block(), except that in one
> * place chain is disconnected - *branch->p is still zero (we did not
> * set the last link), but branch->key contains the number that should
> * be placed into *branch->p to fill that gap.
> @@ -662,7 +662,7 @@ static int ext2_get_blocks(struct inode *inode,
> mutex_lock(&ei->truncate_mutex);
> /*
> * If the indirect block is missing while we are reading
> - * the chain(ext3_get_branch() returns -EAGAIN err), or
> + * the chain(ext2_get_branch() returns -EAGAIN err), or
> * if the chain has been changed after we grab the semaphore,
> * (either because another process truncated this branch, or
> * another get_block allocated this branch) re-grab the chain to see if
Applied.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.