From 3560741e316b3ea52cfb27901ae284921445180f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zhilong Liu Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:14:53 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] md: fix several trivial typos in comments Signed-off-by: Zhilong Liu Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li --- drivers/md/bitmap.c | 2 +- drivers/md/raid5.c | 6 +++--- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/md/bitmap.c b/drivers/md/bitmap.c index cc7bbd21813e..bf7419a56454 100644 --- a/drivers/md/bitmap.c +++ b/drivers/md/bitmap.c @@ -697,7 +697,7 @@ re_read: out: kunmap_atomic(sb); - /* Assiging chunksize is required for "re_read" */ + /* Assigning chunksize is required for "re_read" */ bitmap->mddev->bitmap_info.chunksize = chunksize; if (err == 0 && nodes && (bitmap->cluster_slot < 0)) { err = md_setup_cluster(bitmap->mddev, nodes); diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c index 0b1a4339a437..266d661dc69b 100644 --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c @@ -2296,7 +2296,7 @@ static int resize_stripes(struct r5conf *conf, int newsize) * pages have been transferred over, and the old kmem_cache is * freed when all stripes are done. * 3/ reallocate conf->disks to be suitable bigger. If this fails, - * we simple return a failre status - no need to clean anything up. + * we simple return a failure status - no need to clean anything up. * 4/ allocate new pages for the new slots in the new stripe_heads. * If this fails, we don't bother trying the shrink the * stripe_heads down again, we just leave them as they are. @@ -3558,7 +3558,7 @@ static int need_this_block(struct stripe_head *sh, struct stripe_head_state *s, !test_bit(STRIPE_PREREAD_ACTIVE, &sh->state)) /* Pre-reads at not permitted until after short delay * to gather multiple requests. However if this - * device is no Insync, the block could only be be computed + * device is no Insync, the block could only be computed * and there is no need to delay that. */ return 0; @@ -3577,7 +3577,7 @@ static int need_this_block(struct stripe_head *sh, struct stripe_head_state *s, /* If we are forced to do a reconstruct-write, either because * the current RAID6 implementation only supports that, or - * or because parity cannot be trusted and we are currently + * because parity cannot be trusted and we are currently * recovering it, there is extra need to be careful. * If one of the devices that we would need to read, because * it is not being overwritten (and maybe not written at all) -- 2.39.5