[PATCH] io_uring: fix typos and comment wording

[PATCH] io_uring: fix typos and comment wording

[Alok Tiwari]

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>
---
 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..59062db89ad6 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 is there 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

Re: [PATCH] io_uring: fix typos and comment wording

[Jens Axboe]

> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
> index 296667ba712c..59062db89ad6 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 is there in the link and whether
>  	 * they can even be queued lazily, fall back to non-lazy.

Should probably fix the incorrect grammar there too, if we're making
changes.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [External] : Re: [PATCH] io_uring: fix typos and comment wording

[ALOK TIWARI]

On 11/4/2025 12:22 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
>> index 296667ba712c..59062db89ad6 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 is there in the link and whether
>>   	 * they can even be queued lazily, fall back to non-lazy.
> Should probably fix the incorrect grammar there too, if we're making
> changes.

Thanks Jens, I'll correct the grammar as well.

Thanks,
Alok