Should I correct all the instances of the "careful" and submit the patch including both "carefull" and "function" word correct? or only for the "carefull"? I have already submitted one for the "funcion" word. On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 9:13 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 08:24 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On 8/4/20 7:58 AM, Aditya Bansal wrote: > > > From: Aditya Bansal <adbansal99@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH] fixed typo in driver/staging/wfx/hif_tx.c file > > > > > > Correct the spelling of function > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Aditya Bansal <adbansal99@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/hif_tx.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/hif_tx.c > > > index 5110f9b93762..6a485fa5b72b 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/hif_tx.c > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/hif_tx.c > > > @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ int wfx_cmd_send(struct wfx_dev *wdev, struct hif_msg *request, > > > > > > // This function is special. After HIF_REQ_ID_SHUT_DOWN, chip won't reply to any > > > // request anymore. We need to slightly hack struct wfx_hif_cmd for that job. Be > > > -// carefull to only call this funcion during device unregister. > > > +// carefull to only call this function during device unregister. > > > > careful > > And if you could do all of them: > > $ git grep -w -i -n carefull > arch/m68k/coldfire/pci.c:34: * We need to be carefull probing on bus 0 (directly connected to host > arch/openrisc/kernel/head.S:289: * a bit more carefull (if we have a PT_SP or current pointer > drivers/staging/wfx/debug.c:302: // Be carefull, write() is waiting for a full message while read() > drivers/staging/wfx/hif_tx.c:128:// carefull to only call this funcion during device unregister. > fs/ceph/inode.c:1475: /* parent inode is not locked, be carefull */ > > > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
