Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:04:09 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] include/linux: fix some typos |
| |
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 07:48:37PM +0800, Shile Zhang wrote: > s/Not/Note/ > > Signed-off-by: Shile Zhang <shile.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Or I can take it if no one else wants it. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> --- > include/linux/list_nulls.h | 4 ++-- > include/linux/once.h | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/list_nulls.h b/include/linux/list_nulls.h > index fa6e8471bd22..c845761fe5de 100644 > --- a/include/linux/list_nulls.h > +++ b/include/linux/list_nulls.h > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static inline unsigned long get_nulls_value(const struct hlist_nulls_node *ptr) > * hlist_nulls_unhashed - Has node been removed and reinitialized? > * @h: Node to be checked > * > - * Not that not all removal functions will leave a node in unhashed state. > + * Note that not all removal functions will leave a node in unhashed state. > * For example, hlist_del_init_rcu() leaves the node in unhashed state, > * but hlist_nulls_del() does not. > */ > @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ static inline int hlist_nulls_unhashed(const struct hlist_nulls_node *h) > * hlist_nulls_unhashed_lockless - Has node been removed and reinitialized? > * @h: Node to be checked > * > - * Not that not all removal functions will leave a node in unhashed state. > + * Note that not all removal functions will leave a node in unhashed state. > * For example, hlist_del_init_rcu() leaves the node in unhashed state, > * but hlist_nulls_del() does not. Unlike hlist_nulls_unhashed(), this > * function may be used locklessly. > diff --git a/include/linux/once.h b/include/linux/once.h > index 9225ee6d96c7..095c6debd63b 100644 > --- a/include/linux/once.h > +++ b/include/linux/once.h > @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ void __do_once_done(bool *done, struct static_key_true *once_key, > * out the condition into a nop. DO_ONCE() guarantees type safety of > * arguments! > * > - * Not that the following is not equivalent ... > + * Note that the following is not equivalent ... > * > * DO_ONCE(func, arg); > * DO_ONCE(func, arg); > -- > 2.24.0.rc2 >
| |