Correct spelling in iw_handler.h. As reported by codespell. Also, while the "few shortcomings" line is being updated, correct it's grammar. Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Changes in v2: - Also correct grammar of "few shortcomings" line (Johannes) - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240829-wifi-spell-v1-1-e0a8855482a9@xxxxxxxxxx --- include/net/iw_handler.h | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/net/iw_handler.h b/include/net/iw_handler.h index b2cf243ebe44..7af1082ea9a0 100644 --- a/include/net/iw_handler.h +++ b/include/net/iw_handler.h @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ * to handle wireless statistics. * * The initial APIs served us well and has proven a reasonably good design. - * However, there is a few shortcommings : + * However, there are a few shortcomings : * o No events, everything is a request to the driver. * o Large ioctl function in driver with gigantic switch statement * (i.e. spaghetti code). @@ -38,13 +38,13 @@ * ------------------------------- * The new driver API is just a bunch of standard functions (handlers), * each handling a specific Wireless Extension. The driver just export - * the list of handler it supports, and those will be called apropriately. + * the list of handler it supports, and those will be called appropriately. * * I tried to keep the main advantage of the previous API (simplicity, * efficiency and light weight), and also I provide a good dose of backward * compatibility (most structures are the same, driver can use both API * simultaneously, ...). - * Hopefully, I've also addressed the shortcomming of the initial API. + * Hopefully, I've also addressed the shortcoming of the initial API. * * The advantage of the new API are : * o Handling of Extensions in driver broken in small contained functions @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ /* ---------------------- THE IMPLEMENTATION ---------------------- */ /* - * Some of the choice I've made are pretty controversials. Defining an + * Some of the choice I've made are pretty controversial. Defining an * API is very much weighting compromises. This goes into some of the * details and the thinking behind the implementation. * @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ * example to distinguish setting max rate and basic rate), I would * break the prototype. Using iwreq_data is more flexible. * 3) Also, the above form is not generic (see above). - * 4) I don't expect driver developper using the wrong field of the + * 4) I don't expect driver developer using the wrong field of the * union (Doh !), so static typechecking doesn't add much value. * 5) Lastly, you can skip the union by doing : * static int mydriver_ioctl_setrate(struct net_device *dev, @@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ int iw_handler_get_thrspy(struct net_device *dev, struct iw_request_info *info, void wireless_spy_update(struct net_device *dev, unsigned char *address, struct iw_quality *wstats); -/************************* INLINE FUNTIONS *************************/ +/************************* INLINE FUNCTIONS *************************/ /* * Function that are so simple that it's more efficient inlining them */
