Hi--
On 12/14/23 22:01, Ghanshyam Agrawal wrote:
> Fixed multiple typos in vmwgfx_execbuf.c
>
> Signed-off-by: Ghanshyam Agrawal <ghanshyam1898@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> V2:
> Fixed some more typos suggested by codespell
> and the community.
>
> V1:
> Fixed multiple typos
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_execbuf.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_execbuf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_execbuf.c
> index 36987ef3fc30..76aa72e8be73 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_execbuf.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_execbuf.c
> @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ struct vmw_ctx_validation_info {
> * @func: Call-back to handle the command.
> * @user_allow: Whether allowed from the execbuf ioctl.
> * @gb_disable: Whether disabled if guest-backed objects are available.
> - * @gb_enable: Whether enabled iff guest-backed objects are available.
> + * @gb_enable: Whether enabled if guest-backed objects are available.
"iff" normally means "if and only if" and its use in the kernel sources is
usually not a mistake. However, this one sounds dodgy to me (before your change),
so it's OK IMO. Also, the line above it uses "if" for a similar comment.
Maybe someone else knows better.
> * @cmd_name: Name of the command.
> */
> struct vmw_cmd_entry {
> @@ -621,10 +621,10 @@ static int vmw_resources_reserve(struct vmw_sw_context *sw_context)
> * @sw_context: Pointer to the software context.
> * @res_type: Resource type.
> * @dirty: Whether to change dirty status.
> - * @converter: User-space visisble type specific information.
> + * @converter: User-space visible type specific information.
> * @id_loc: Pointer to the location in the command buffer currently being parsed
> * from where the user-space resource id handle is located.
> - * @p_res: Pointer to pointer to resource validalidation node. Populated on
> + * @p_res: Pointer to pointer to resource validation node. Populated on
> * exit.
> */
> static int
> @@ -1069,7 +1069,7 @@ static int vmw_query_bo_switch_prepare(struct vmw_private *dev_priv,
> * object following that query wait has signaled, we are sure that all preceding
> * queries have finished, and the old query buffer can be unpinned. However,
> * since both the new query buffer and the old one are fenced with that fence,
> - * we can do an asynchronus unpin now, and be sure that the old query buffer
> + * we can do an asynchronous unpin now, and be sure that the old query buffer
> * won't be moved until the fence has signaled.
> *
> * As mentioned above, both the new - and old query buffers need to be fenced
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
thanks.
--
#Randy
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
https://subspace.kernel.org/etiquette.html
