Drop the second 'in', reported by checkpatch.pl as a possible repeated
word.  Only touches a comment, no code changes.

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

diff --git a/fs/isofs/compress.c b/fs/isofs/compress.c
index f9869d62b850..9efd7a9082e3 100644
--- a/fs/isofs/compress.c
+++ b/fs/isofs/compress.c
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ static loff_t zisofs_uncompress_block(struct inode *inode, loff_t block_start,
 	/*
 	 * First block is special since it may be fractional.  We also wait for
 	 * it before grabbing the zlib mutex; odds are that the subsequent
-	 * blocks are going to come in in short order so we don't hold the zlib
+	 * blocks are going to come in short order so we don't hold the zlib
 	 * mutex longer than necessary.
 	 */
 
-- 
2.48.1

On Fri 04-09-26 18:09:13, Hemanth Selam wrote:
> Drop the second 'in', reported by checkpatch.pl as a possible repeated
> word.  Only touches a comment, no code changes.
> 
> Assisted-by: Cursor:claude-opus-5
> Signed-off-by: Hemanth Selam <hemanth.selam@gmail.com>

Thanks. Added to my tree.

								Honza

> ---
>  fs/isofs/compress.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/isofs/compress.c b/fs/isofs/compress.c
> index f9869d62b850..9efd7a9082e3 100644
> --- a/fs/isofs/compress.c
> +++ b/fs/isofs/compress.c
> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ static loff_t zisofs_uncompress_block(struct inode *inode, loff_t block_start,
>  	/*
>  	 * First block is special since it may be fractional.  We also wait for
>  	 * it before grabbing the zlib mutex; odds are that the subsequent
> -	 * blocks are going to come in in short order so we don't hold the zlib
> +	 * blocks are going to come in short order so we don't hold the zlib
>  	 * mutex longer than necessary.
>  	 */
>  
> -- 
> 2.48.1
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

Please drop this patch, it is wrong.

  "the subsequent blocks are going to come in in short order"

"come in" is the verb and "in short order" is the adverbial that follows
it.  Both words belong there and the comment reads correctly as it is.

I matched the doubled word without reading the sentence.  Sorry for the
noise.

On Mon 07-09-26 09:54:02, Hemanth Selam wrote:
> Please drop this patch, it is wrong.
> 
>   "the subsequent blocks are going to come in in short order"
> 
> "come in" is the verb and "in short order" is the adverbial that follows
> it.  Both words belong there and the comment reads correctly as it is.

Ah right. It actually makes sense both ways but you are right the change is
unnecessary. Dropping.
	
								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR