[PATCH] RDMA/core: Correct typos in comments

Jiang Jian posted 1 patch 3 years, 10 months ago
drivers/infiniband/core/rdma_core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
[PATCH] RDMA/core: Correct typos in comments
Posted by Jiang Jian 3 years, 10 months ago
there is an unexpected word 'is' in the comments that need to be dropped

file - drivers/infiniband/core/rdma_core.c
line - 71

/* work and stuff was only created when the device is is hot-state */

changed t0:

/* work and stuff was only created when the device is hot-state */

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

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/rdma_core.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/rdma_core.c
index 94d83b665a2f..29b1ab1d5f93 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/core/rdma_core.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/rdma_core.c
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static int uverbs_try_lock_object(struct ib_uobject *uobj,
 	 * In exclusive access mode, we check that the counter is zero (nobody
 	 * claimed this object) and we set it to -1. Releasing a shared access
 	 * lock is done simply by decreasing the counter. As for exclusive
-	 * access locks, since only a single one of them is is allowed
+	 * access locks, since only a single one of them is allowed
 	 * concurrently, setting the counter to zero is enough for releasing
 	 * this lock.
 	 */
-- 
2.17.1
Re: [PATCH] RDMA/core: Correct typos in comments
Posted by Jason Gunthorpe 3 years, 9 months ago
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 01:08:53AM +0800, Jiang Jian wrote:
> there is an unexpected word 'is' in the comments that need to be dropped
> 
> file - drivers/infiniband/core/rdma_core.c
> line - 71
> 
> /* work and stuff was only created when the device is is hot-state */
> 
> changed t0:
> 
> /* work and stuff was only created when the device is hot-state */
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiang Jian <jiangjian@cdjrlc.com>
> ---
>  drivers/infiniband/core/rdma_core.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

I squashed this patch and the next one about 'for' into one patch and
applied to for-next

Thanks,
Jason