There is a typo (writeable) in qib_file_ops.c and qib_sd7220.c's comments.
Fix it.

Signed-off-by: Zhang Jiaming <jiaming@nfschina.com>
---
 drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_file_ops.c | 4 ++--
 drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_sd7220.c   | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_file_ops.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_file_ops.c
index aa290928cf96..f61e07f684cf 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_file_ops.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_file_ops.c
@@ -851,7 +851,7 @@ static int mmap_rcvegrbufs(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 		ret = -EPERM;
 		goto bail;
 	}
-	/* don't allow them to later change to writeable with mprotect */
+	/* don't allow them to later change to writable with mprotect */
 	vma->vm_flags &= ~VM_MAYWRITE;
 
 	start = vma->vm_start;
@@ -941,7 +941,7 @@ static int mmap_kvaddr(struct vm_area_struct *vma, u64 pgaddr,
 			goto bail;
 		}
 		/*
-		 * Don't allow permission to later change to writeable
+		 * Don't allow permission to later change to writable
 		 * with mprotect.
 		 */
 		vma->vm_flags &= ~VM_MAYWRITE;
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_sd7220.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_sd7220.c
index 81b810d006c0..1dc3ccf0cf1f 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_sd7220.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_sd7220.c
@@ -587,7 +587,7 @@ static int epb_access(struct qib_devdata *dd, int sdnum, int claim)
 		/* Need to release */
 		u64 pollval;
 		/*
-		 * The only writeable bits are the request and CS.
+		 * The only writable bits are the request and CS.
 		 * Both should be clear
 		 */
 		u64 newval = 0;
-- 
2.25.1

On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 03:48:12PM +0800, Zhang Jiaming wrote:
> There is a typo (writeable) in qib_file_ops.c and qib_sd7220.c's comments.
> Fix it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Jiaming <jiaming@nfschina.com>
> ---
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_file_ops.c | 4 ++--
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_sd7220.c   | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

I squashed this and the other one and applied to for-next

Thanks,
Jason