Dear Zhang,
Thank you for your patch. Some nits.
Am 04.07.22 um 03:23 schrieb Zhang Jiaming:
There are some typos(dones't, waitting) in comments.
Fix it.
Please add a space before the (. “Fix it.” also fits on the line above,
and maybe use plural in the commit message summary. For the body, maybe:
Fix spelling of dones't and waitting in comments.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Jiaming <jiaming@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/md/raid5-cache.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c b/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
index 83c184eddbda..4b799005eb6e 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ struct r5l_log {
* reclaimed. if it's 0, reclaim spaces
* used by io_units which are in
* IO_UNIT_STRIPE_END state (eg, reclaim
- * dones't wait for specific io_unit
+ * doesn't wait for specific io_unit
* switching to IO_UNIT_STRIPE_END
* state) */
wait_queue_head_t iounit_wait;
@@ -1327,9 +1327,9 @@ static void r5l_write_super_and_discard_space(struct r5l_log *log,
* superblock is updated to new log tail. Updating superblock (either
* directly call md_update_sb() or depend on md thread) must hold
* reconfig mutex. On the other hand, raid5_quiesce is called with
- * reconfig_mutex hold. The first step of raid5_quiesce() is waitting
- * for all IO finish, hence waitting for reclaim thread, while reclaim
- * thread is calling this function and waitting for reconfig mutex. So
+ * reconfig_mutex hold. The first step of raid5_quiesce() is waiting
+ * for all IO finish, hence waiting for reclaim thread, while reclaim
+ * thread is calling this function and waiting for reconfig mutex. So
* there is a deadlock. We workaround this issue with a trylock.
* FIXME: we could miss discard if we can't take reconfig mutex
*/
Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Kind regards,
Paul
