* [PATCH v2] io_uring: fix typos and comment wording
@ 2025-11-05 5:01 Alok Tiwari
2025-11-05 15:22 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Alok Tiwari @ 2025-11-05 5:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: axboe, io-uring; +Cc: alok.a.tiwari, alok.a.tiwarilinux
Corrected spelling mistakes in comments
"reuqests" -> "requests", "noifications" -> "notifications",
"seperately" -> "separately").
Fixed a small grammar issue ("then" -> "than").
Updated "flag" -> "flags" in fdinfo.c
Signed-off-by: Alok Tiwari <alok.a.tiwari@oracle.com>
---
v1 -> v2
rephase grammar in io_uring.c
---
io_uring/fdinfo.c | 2 +-
io_uring/io_uring.c | 4 ++--
io_uring/notif.c | 2 +-
io_uring/rw.c | 6 +++---
4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/io_uring/fdinfo.c b/io_uring/fdinfo.c
index 294c75a8a3bd..05c90aca483f 100644
--- a/io_uring/fdinfo.c
+++ b/io_uring/fdinfo.c
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static void __io_uring_show_fdinfo(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct seq_file *m)
cqe = &r->cqes[(cq_head & cq_mask)];
if (cqe->flags & IORING_CQE_F_32 || ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_CQE32)
cqe32 = true;
- seq_printf(m, "%5u: user_data:%llu, res:%d, flag:%x",
+ seq_printf(m, "%5u: user_data:%llu, res:%d, flags:%x",
cq_head & cq_mask, cqe->user_data, cqe->res,
cqe->flags);
if (cqe32)
diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
index 296667ba712c..335487c838bb 100644
--- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
+++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
@@ -915,7 +915,7 @@ bool io_post_aux_cqe(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, u64 user_data, s32 res, u32 cflags
}
/*
- * Must be called from inline task_work so we now a flush will happen later,
+ * Must be called from inline task_work so we know a flush will happen later,
* and obviously with ctx->uring_lock held (tw always has that).
*/
void io_add_aux_cqe(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, u64 user_data, s32 res, u32 cflags)
@@ -1246,7 +1246,7 @@ static void io_req_local_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned flags)
BUILD_BUG_ON(IO_CQ_WAKE_FORCE <= IORING_MAX_CQ_ENTRIES);
/*
- * We don't know how many reuqests is there in the link and whether
+ * We don't know how many requests there are in the link and whether
* they can even be queued lazily, fall back to non-lazy.
*/
if (req->flags & IO_REQ_LINK_FLAGS)
diff --git a/io_uring/notif.c b/io_uring/notif.c
index d8ba1165c949..853b597cae2d 100644
--- a/io_uring/notif.c
+++ b/io_uring/notif.c
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ static int io_link_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, struct ubuf_info *uarg)
prev_nd = container_of(prev_uarg, struct io_notif_data, uarg);
prev_notif = cmd_to_io_kiocb(prev_nd);
- /* make sure all noifications can be finished in the same task_work */
+ /* make sure all notifications can be finished in the same task_work */
if (unlikely(notif->ctx != prev_notif->ctx ||
notif->tctx != prev_notif->tctx))
return -EEXIST;
diff --git a/io_uring/rw.c b/io_uring/rw.c
index 5b2241a5813c..daf4deefdfb2 100644
--- a/io_uring/rw.c
+++ b/io_uring/rw.c
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ static void io_req_rw_cleanup(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags)
* This is really a bug in the core code that does this, any issue
* path should assume that a successful (or -EIOCBQUEUED) return can
* mean that the underlying data can be gone at any time. But that
- * should be fixed seperately, and then this check could be killed.
+ * should be fixed separately, and then this check could be killed.
*/
if (!(req->flags & (REQ_F_REISSUE | REQ_F_REFCOUNT))) {
req->flags &= ~REQ_F_NEED_CLEANUP;
@@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ static int io_prep_rwv(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe,
/*
* Have to do this validation here, as this is in io_read() rw->len
- * might have chanaged due to buffer selection
+ * might have changed due to buffer selection
*/
return io_iov_buffer_select_prep(req);
}
@@ -1019,7 +1019,7 @@ static int __io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_br_sel *sel,
iov_iter_restore(&io->iter, &io->iter_state);
} while (ret > 0);
done:
- /* it's faster to check here then delegate to kfree */
+ /* it's faster to check here than delegate to kfree */
return ret;
}
--
2.50.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] io_uring: fix typos and comment wording
2025-11-05 5:01 [PATCH v2] io_uring: fix typos and comment wording Alok Tiwari
@ 2025-11-05 15:22 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2025-11-05 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: io-uring, Alok Tiwari; +Cc: alok.a.tiwarilinux
On Tue, 04 Nov 2025 21:01:09 -0800, Alok Tiwari wrote:
> Corrected spelling mistakes in comments
> "reuqests" -> "requests", "noifications" -> "notifications",
> "seperately" -> "separately").
>
> Fixed a small grammar issue ("then" -> "than").
> Updated "flag" -> "flags" in fdinfo.c
>
> [...]
Applied, thanks!
[1/1] io_uring: fix typos and comment wording
commit: 59f44afbe8cfe7904e8cf8d2bb67eb86b79e58da
Best regards,
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-11-05 15:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-11-05 5:01 [PATCH v2] io_uring: fix typos and comment wording Alok Tiwari
2025-11-05 15:22 ` Jens Axboe
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox