lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH 1/1] md/raid5: Fix spelling mistakes in comments
Date
Fix spelling of 'waitting' in comments.

Signed-off-by: XU pengfei <xupengfei@nfschina.com>
---
drivers/md/raid5-cache.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c b/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
index f4e1cc1ece43..058d82e7fa13 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid5-cache.c
@@ -1327,9 +1327,9 @@ static void r5l_write_super_and_discard_space(struct r5l_log *log,
* superblock is updated to new log tail. Updating superblock (either
* directly call md_update_sb() or depend on md thread) must hold
* reconfig mutex. On the other hand, raid5_quiesce is called with
- * reconfig_mutex hold. The first step of raid5_quiesce() is waitting
- * for all IO finish, hence waitting for reclaim thread, while reclaim
- * thread is calling this function and waitting for reconfig mutex. So
+ * reconfig_mutex hold. The first step of raid5_quiesce() is waiting
+ * for all IO finish, hence waiting for reclaim thread, while reclaim
+ * thread is calling this function and waiting for reconfig mutex. So
* there is a deadlock. We workaround this issue with a trylock.
* FIXME: we could miss discard if we can't take reconfig mutex
*/
--
2.18.2
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-17 11:24    [W:0.234 / U:0.728 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site