Correct "reseting" to "resetting", reported by scripts/checkpatch.pl using
the misspelling list in scripts/spelling.txt.  Only touches comments, no
code changes.

Assisted-by: Cursor:claude-opus-5
Signed-off-by: Hemanth Selam <hemanth.selam@gmail.com>
---
 arch/m68k/coldfire/reset.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/m68k/coldfire/reset.c b/arch/m68k/coldfire/reset.c
index 6e5f8ab39f32..9507d7810d98 100644
--- a/arch/m68k/coldfire/reset.c
+++ b/arch/m68k/coldfire/reset.c
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
 #include <asm/mcfsim.h>
 
 /*
- *	There are 2 common methods amongst the ColdFure parts for reseting
+ *	There are 2 common methods amongst the ColdFure parts for resetting
  *	the CPU. But there are couple of exceptions, the 5272 and the 547x
  *	have something completely special to them, and we let their specific
  *	subarch code handle them.
-- 
2.48.1

On Sep 4, 2026, at 7:23 AM, Hemanth Selam <hemanth.selam@gmail.com> wrote:

> Correct "reseting" to "resetting", reported by scripts/checkpatch.pl using
> the misspelling list in scripts/spelling.txt.  Only touches comments, no
> code changes.
> 
> Assisted-by: Cursor:claude-opus-5
> Signed-off-by: Hemanth Selam <hemanth.selam@gmail.com>
> 
> - *	There are 2 common methods amongst the ColdFure parts for reseting
> + *	There are 2 common methods amongst the ColdFure parts for resetting

Is there a reason to leave “ColdFure” as is?

Josh

On Sun, 2026-09-06 at 02:40 -0400, Josh Juran wrote:
> On Sep 4, 2026, at 7:23 AM, Hemanth Selam <hemanth.selam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Correct "reseting" to "resetting", reported by scripts/checkpatch.pl using
> > the misspelling list in scripts/spelling.txt.  Only touches comments, no
> > code changes.
> > 
> > Assisted-by: Cursor:claude-opus-5
> > Signed-off-by: Hemanth Selam <hemanth.selam@gmail.com>
> > 
> > - *	There are 2 common methods amongst the ColdFure parts for reseting
> > + *	There are 2 common methods amongst the ColdFure parts for resetting
> 
> Is there a reason to leave “ColdFure” as is?

The AI assistant probably never heard about ColdFire, so it assumed the spelling
is correct ;-).

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

On Sep 6, 2026, at 2:43 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> On Sun, 2026-09-06 at 02:40 -0400, Josh Juran wrote:
>> On Sep 4, 2026, at 7:23 AM, Hemanth Selam <hemanth.selam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Correct "reseting" to "resetting", reported by scripts/checkpatch.pl using
>>> the misspelling list in scripts/spelling.txt.  Only touches comments, no
>>> code changes.
>>> 
>>> Assisted-by: Cursor:claude-opus-5
>>> Signed-off-by: Hemanth Selam <hemanth.selam@gmail.com>
>>> 
>>> - *	There are 2 common methods amongst the ColdFure parts for reseting
>>> + *	There are 2 common methods amongst the ColdFure parts for resetting
>> 
>> Is there a reason to leave “ColdFure” as is?
> 
> The AI assistant probably never heard about ColdFire, so it assumed the spelling
> is correct ;-).

What about the human reviewing its output?  Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of "Signed-off-by”?

Josh

On Sun, Sep 06, 2026 at 02:46:04AM -0400, Josh Juran wrote:
> What about the human reviewing its output?  Or am I misunderstanding
> the meaning of "Signed-off-by"?

You are not misunderstanding it.  My Signed-off-by certifies the DCO,
but sending the patch also means I am answerable for what is in it, and
on this one I did not look hard enough.

The patch came out of a mechanical sweep: checkpatch.pl flags words
listed in scripts/spelling.txt, "reseting" is in that list and
"ColdFure" is not, so nothing pointed at it.  That explains why the
tool stopped there.  It does not explain why I did not, because the two
words are on the same line and reading the comment was my job.

You caught it, and the v2 fixes both words; Greg has since applied it.

The wider lesson I am taking from this is that a large series does not
get to be reviewed in bulk.  Each patch has to be read on its own, in
context, before it goes out, and that is what I will be doing for the
rest of this work.

Thanks for pushing on it rather than letting it through.

Hemanth

On Sep 7, 2026, at 5:15 AM, Hemanth Selam <hemanth.selam@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 06, 2026 at 02:46:04AM -0400, Josh Juran wrote:
> 
>> What about the human reviewing its output?  Or am I misunderstanding
>> the meaning of "Signed-off-by"?
> 
> You are not misunderstanding it.  My Signed-off-by certifies the DCO,
> but sending the patch also means I am answerable for what is in it, and
> on this one I did not look hard enough.

Thank you for accepting my question on its merits (despite the rhetorical barb I attached to it) and answering thoughtfully.  I could not have asked for more humility than you’ve shown in your reply.

> The wider lesson I am taking from this is that a large series does not
> get to be reviewed in bulk.  Each patch has to be read on its own, in
> context, before it goes out, and that is what I will be doing for the
> rest of this work.

Again, I couldn’t ask for more than that.  Thank you.

> Thanks for pushing on it rather than letting it through.

You’re welcome.  Thanks for listening.

Peace,
Josh