From 698e7d1680544ef114203b0cf656faa0c1216ebc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yan Zhen Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:33:53 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] proc: Fix typo in the comment The deference here confuses me. Maybe here want to say that because show_fd_locks() does not dereference the files pointer, using the stale value of the files pointer is safe. Correctly spelled comments make it easier for the reader to understand the code. replace 'deferences' with 'dereferences' in the comment & replace 'inialized' with 'initialized' in the comment. Signed-off-by: Yan Zhen Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240909063353.2246419-1-yanzhen@vivo.com Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner --- fs/proc/fd.c | 2 +- fs/proc/kcore.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/proc/fd.c b/fs/proc/fd.c index 586bbc84ca04..7baafb1eba13 100644 --- a/fs/proc/fd.c +++ b/fs/proc/fd.c @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ static int seq_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) real_mount(file->f_path.mnt)->mnt_id, file_inode(file)->i_ino); - /* show_fd_locks() never deferences files so a stale value is safe */ + /* show_fd_locks() never dereferences files, so a stale value is safe */ show_fd_locks(m, file, files); if (seq_has_overflowed(m)) goto out; diff --git a/fs/proc/kcore.c b/fs/proc/kcore.c index 8e08a9a1b7ed..7d0acdad74e2 100644 --- a/fs/proc/kcore.c +++ b/fs/proc/kcore.c @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static int kcore_ram_list(struct list_head *list) int nid, ret; unsigned long end_pfn; - /* Not inialized....update now */ + /* Not initialized....update now */ /* find out "max pfn" */ end_pfn = 0; for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {