On 2022/6/29 22:46，“Jens Axboe”<axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 6/29/22 8:43 AM, korantwork@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Xinghui Li <korantli@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > fix a typo in comment in io_allocate_scq_urings. > > sane -> same. > > > > Signed-off-by: Xinghui Li <korantli@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/io_uring.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c > > index d3ee4fc532fa..af17adf3fa79 100644 > > --- a/fs/io_uring.c > > +++ b/fs/io_uring.c > > @@ -12284,7 +12284,7 @@ static __cold int io_allocate_scq_urings(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, > > struct io_rings *rings; > > size_t size, sq_array_offset; > > > > - /* make sure these are sane, as we already accounted them */ > > + /* make sure these are same, as we already accounted them */ > > ctx->sq_entries = p->sq_entries; > > ctx->cq_entries = p->cq_entries; > That's not really a typo, though I can see why you'd think so. It's > trying to say that we need to ensure that the ctx entries are sane, > as they have already been accounted. This means that if we teardown > past this point, they need to be assigned (eg sane) so that we undo > that accounting appropriately. Thanks a lot for your reply and I am sorry about wasting your effort. I will try to submit some valuable patches. : - ) -- Xinghui Li
