On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 9:56 AM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 12:11:20 PDT (-0700), Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > Various spelling mistakes in comments. > > Detected with the help of Coccinelle. > > > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > arch/riscv/kvm/vmid.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vmid.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vmid.c > > index 2fa4f7b1813d..4a2178c60b5d 100644 > > --- a/arch/riscv/kvm/vmid.c > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vmid.c > > @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ void kvm_riscv_stage2_vmid_update(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > * We ran out of VMIDs so we increment vmid_version and > > * start assigning VMIDs from 1. > > * > > - * This also means existing VMIDs assignement to all Guest > > + * This also means existing VMIDs assignment to all Guest > > * instances is invalid and we have force VMID re-assignement > > * for all Guest instances. The Guest instances that were not > > * running will automatically pick-up new VMIDs because will > > Anup: I'm guessing you didn't see this because it didn't have KVM in the > subject? > > Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > if that helps any, I don't see in anywhere but not sure if I'm just > missing it. Thanks Palmer, I had already planned to pick this as a RC fix for 5.19 but I forgot to reply here. Regards, Anup
