lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Subjecttypos
From
Date
Hi there guys,
I've been pondering on posting about this for a long time but I guess
I'll just go and say it. I've been reading the lkml for about a year now
and, I don't know how important it is to you, but I think that typos in
the comments in the kernel sources really annoy those who really read
them in order to understand what's going on. Well, I'm one of them, and,
since the typos are really a lot, I thought that maybe fixing them would
be a good idea.
Here's a patch. Please, tell me if you don't want such noise on the list
but I think that, although not crucial, somewhat correct english in the
comments would be better, or?

Regards,
Boris


--- linux-2.6.8.1/ipc/sem.c.orig 2004-08-17 10:02:06.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.8.1/ipc/sem.c 2004-08-17 10:02:57.000000000 +0200
@@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ static inline void lock_semundo(void)
* acquires the undo_list lock in lock_semundo(). If task2 now
* exits before task1 releases the lock (by calling
* unlock_semundo()), then task1 will never call spin_unlock().
- * This leave the sem_undo_list in a locked state. If task1 now creats task3
+ * This leaves the sem_undo_list in a locked state. If task1 now creates task3
* and once again shares the sem_undo_list, the sem_undo_list will still be
* locked, and future SEM_UNDO operations will deadlock. This case is
* dealt with in copy_semundo() by having it reinitialize the spin lock when [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:5.001 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site