On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 04:54:11PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> Fix some spelling mistakes in comments:
> data-strcuture ==> data-structure
> responsibilty ==> responsibility
> interrrupts ==> interrupts
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Good eyes, but...
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 6 +++---
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> index 350ebf5051f9..311aa7b14830 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> @@ -504,7 +504,7 @@ DEFINE_RCU_TASKS(rcu_tasks, rcu_tasks_wait_gp, call_rcu_tasks, "RCU Tasks");
> * or transition to usermode execution. As such, there are no read-side
> * primitives analogous to rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() because
> * this primitive is intended to determine that all tasks have passed
> - * through a safe state, not so much for data-strcuture synchronization.
> + * through a safe state, not so much for data-structure synchronization.
> *
> * See the description of call_rcu() for more detailed information on
> * memory ordering guarantees.
> @@ -637,7 +637,7 @@ DEFINE_RCU_TASKS(rcu_tasks_rude, rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp, call_rcu_tasks_rude,
> * there are no read-side primitives analogous to rcu_read_lock() and
> * rcu_read_unlock() because this primitive is intended to determine
> * that all tasks have passed through a safe state, not so much for
> - * data-strcuture synchronization.
> + * data-structure synchronization.
> *
> * See the description of call_rcu() for more detailed information on
> * memory ordering guarantees.
> @@ -1163,7 +1163,7 @@ static void exit_tasks_rcu_finish_trace(struct task_struct *t)
> * there are no read-side primitives analogous to rcu_read_lock() and
> * rcu_read_unlock() because this primitive is intended to determine
> * that all tasks have passed through a safe state, not so much for
> - * data-strcuture synchronization.
> + * data-structure synchronization.
> *
> * See the description of call_rcu() for more detailed information on
> * memory ordering guarantees.
...Ingo Molnar beat you to these.
See the following commit in the -rcu tree:
a616aec9aa14 ("rcu: Fix various typos in comments")
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 8e78b2430c16..c32891763955 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -3848,7 +3848,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(start_poll_synchronize_rcu);
> *
> * If a full RCU grace period has elapsed since the earlier call from
> * which oldstate was obtained, return @true, otherwise return @false.
> - * If @false is returned, it is the caller's responsibilty to invoke this
> + * If @false is returned, it is the caller's responsibility to invoke this
> * function later on until it does return @true. Alternatively, the caller
> * can explicitly wait for a grace period, for example, by passing @oldstate
> * to cond_synchronize_rcu() or by directly invoking synchronize_rcu().
> @@ -4094,7 +4094,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_barrier);
> /*
> * Propagate ->qsinitmask bits up the rcu_node tree to account for the
> * first CPU in a given leaf rcu_node structure coming online. The caller
> - * must hold the corresponding leaf rcu_node ->lock with interrrupts
> + * must hold the corresponding leaf rcu_node ->lock with interrupts
> * disabled.
> */
> static void rcu_init_new_rnp(struct rcu_node *rnp_leaf)
And Ingo also beat you to both of these.
Nevertheless, thank you for sending the patch, and I wish you better
luck in future patches.
Thanx, Paul
