there is an unexpected word "the" in the comments that need to be dropped

file: ./drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c
line: 3568

* have to request a PCI to be sure the the PCI
changed to
* have to request a PCI to be sure the PCI

Signed-off-by: Jiang Jian <jiangjian@cdjrlc.com>
---
 drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c b/drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c
index 9e54fe76a9b2..35d4b398c197 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c
@@ -3565,7 +3565,7 @@ static void qeth_flush_buffers(struct qeth_qdio_out_q *queue, int index,
 			if (!atomic_read(&queue->set_pci_flags_count)) {
 				/*
 				 * there's no outstanding PCI any more, so we
-				 * have to request a PCI to be sure the the PCI
+				 * have to request a PCI to be sure the PCI
 				 * will wake at some time in the future then we
 				 * can flush packed buffers that might still be
 				 * hanging around, which can happen if no
-- 
2.17.1

On 21.06.22 13:37, Jiang Jian wrote:
> there is an unexpected word "the" in the comments that need to be dropped
> 
> file: ./drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c
> line: 3568
> 
> * have to request a PCI to be sure the the PCI
> changed to
> * have to request a PCI to be sure the PCI
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiang Jian <jiangjian@cdjrlc.com>
> ---
>  drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c b/drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c
> index 9e54fe76a9b2..35d4b398c197 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c
> @@ -3565,7 +3565,7 @@ static void qeth_flush_buffers(struct qeth_qdio_out_q *queue, int index,
>  			if (!atomic_read(&queue->set_pci_flags_count)) {
>  				/*
>  				 * there's no outstanding PCI any more, so we
> -				 * have to request a PCI to be sure the the PCI
> +				 * have to request a PCI to be sure the PCI
>  				 * will wake at some time in the future then we
>  				 * can flush packed buffers that might still be
>  				 * hanging around, which can happen if no

Acked-by: Alexandra Winter <wintera@linux.ibm.com>

On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 13:58 +0200, Alexandra Winter wrote:
> On 21.06.22 13:37, Jiang Jian wrote:
> > there is an unexpected word "the" in the comments that need to be dropped
[]
> > * have to request a PCI to be sure the the PCI
> > * have to request a PCI to be sure the PCI
[]
> > diff --git a/drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c b/drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c
[]
> > @@ -3565,7 +3565,7 @@ static void qeth_flush_buffers(struct qeth_qdio_out_q *queue, int index,
> >  			if (!atomic_read(&queue->set_pci_flags_count)) {
> >  				/*
> >  				 * there's no outstanding PCI any more, so we
> > -				 * have to request a PCI to be sure the the PCI

Might have intended "that the" and not "the the"

> > +				 * have to request a PCI to be sure the PCI
> >  				 * will wake at some time in the future then we
> >  				 * can flush packed buffers that might still be
> >  				 * hanging around, which can happen if no

And this is a relatively long sentence.

Perhaps something like:

			if (!atomic_read(&queue->set_pci_flags_count)) {
				/*
				 * there's no outstanding PCI any more so:
				 * o request a PCI to be sure that the PCI
				 *   will wake at some time in the future
				 * o flush packed buffers that might still be
				 *   hanging around (which can happen if no
				 *   further send was requested by the stack)
				 */

On 21.06.22 17:01, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 13:58 +0200, Alexandra Winter wrote:
>> On 21.06.22 13:37, Jiang Jian wrote:
>>> there is an unexpected word "the" in the comments that need to be dropped
> []
>>> * have to request a PCI to be sure the the PCI
>>> * have to request a PCI to be sure the PCI
> []
>>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c b/drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c
> []
>>> @@ -3565,7 +3565,7 @@ static void qeth_flush_buffers(struct qeth_qdio_out_q *queue, int index,
>>>  			if (!atomic_read(&queue->set_pci_flags_count)) {
>>>  				/*
>>>  				 * there's no outstanding PCI any more, so we
>>> -				 * have to request a PCI to be sure the the PCI
> 
> Might have intended "that the" and not "the the"
> 
>>> +				 * have to request a PCI to be sure the PCI
>>>  				 * will wake at some time in the future then we
>>>  				 * can flush packed buffers that might still be
>>>  				 * hanging around, which can happen if no
> 
> And this is a relatively long sentence.
> 
> Perhaps something like:
> 
> 			if (!atomic_read(&queue->set_pci_flags_count)) {
> 				/*
> 				 * there's no outstanding PCI any more so:
> 				 * o request a PCI to be sure that the PCI
> 				 *   will wake at some time in the future
> 				 * o flush packed buffers that might still be
> 				 *   hanging around (which can happen if no
> 				 *   further send was requested by the stack)
> 				 */
> 

No, don't remove the word 'then'
Not-Acked-by: Alexandra Winter <wintera@linux.ibm.com>

Jiang, if you want to submit another patch, 
You could split the long sentence:
			if (!atomic_read(&queue->set_pci_flags_count)) {
 				/*
 				 * there's no outstanding PCI any more, so we
-				 * have to request a PCI to be sure the the PCI
- 				 * will wake at some time in the future then we
+				 * have to request a PCI to be sure the PCI
+ 				 * will wake at some time in the future. Then we
 				 * can flush packed buffers that might still be
 				 * hanging around, which can happen if no

I don't think this is a significant improvement in readability, though.