| Message ID | 20230116093847.26275-1-colin.i.king@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [next] btrfs: Fix spelling mistake "geneartion" -> "generation" | expand |
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 09:38:47AM +0000, Colin Ian King wrote: > There is a spelling mistake in a btrfs warning message and in a comment. > Fix them both. > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@gmail.com> > --- > fs/btrfs/scrub.c | 2 +- > fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c > index 10c26bc8e60e..a5d026041be4 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c > @@ -2106,7 +2106,7 @@ static int scrub_checksum_tree_block(struct scrub_block *sblock) > sblock->header_error = 1; > sblock->generation_error = 1; > btrfs_warn_rl(fs_info, > - "tree block %llu mirror %u has bad geneartion, has %llu want %llu", > + "tree block %llu mirror %u has bad generation, has %llu want %llu", Folded to the patch, thanks. > sblock->logical, sblock->mirror_num, > btrfs_stack_header_generation(h), > sector->generation); > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c > index baad1ed7e111..32cd06f7660e 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c > @@ -1144,7 +1144,7 @@ static int check_root_item(struct extent_buffer *leaf, struct btrfs_key *key, > /* > * For legacy root item, the members starting at generation_v2 will be > * all filled with 0. > - * And since we allow geneartion_v2 as 0, it will still pass the check. > + * And since we allow generation_v2 as 0, it will still pass the check. This has been there for some time and codespell does not catch it, probably due to "_v2". What else I found in current misc-next: ./raid56.c:1001: numer ==> number ./raid56.c:1186: veritical ==> vertical ./raid56.c:1360: Uptodate ==> Up-to-date ./raid56.c:1524: behaviro ==> behavior ./raid56.c:1768: veritical ==> vertical ./raid56.h:68: Numer ==> Number ./raid56.h:135: exlcuding ==> excluding ./extent-io-tree.c:1628: Searche ==> Search, searched ./super.c:2053: goup ==> group ./volumes.c:730: constitutent ==> constituent ./bio.c:286: sychronously ==> synchronously ./compression.c:799: priting ==> printing ./compression.c:1645: uncompressible ==> incompressible ./compression.c:1645: uncompressible ==> incompressible ./disk-io.c:770: Retrun ==> Return ./disk-io.c:771: succesfuly ==> successfully ./scrub.c:232: archtectures ==> architectures I'd rather apply one patch for all the typo fixes, can you do that please? The above is only from codespell I haven't looked if the suggestions are actually correct. Thanks.
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c index 10c26bc8e60e..a5d026041be4 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c @@ -2106,7 +2106,7 @@ static int scrub_checksum_tree_block(struct scrub_block *sblock) sblock->header_error = 1; sblock->generation_error = 1; btrfs_warn_rl(fs_info, - "tree block %llu mirror %u has bad geneartion, has %llu want %llu", + "tree block %llu mirror %u has bad generation, has %llu want %llu", sblock->logical, sblock->mirror_num, btrfs_stack_header_generation(h), sector->generation); diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c index baad1ed7e111..32cd06f7660e 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c @@ -1144,7 +1144,7 @@ static int check_root_item(struct extent_buffer *leaf, struct btrfs_key *key, /* * For legacy root item, the members starting at generation_v2 will be * all filled with 0. - * And since we allow geneartion_v2 as 0, it will still pass the check. + * And since we allow generation_v2 as 0, it will still pass the check. */ read_extent_buffer(leaf, &ri, btrfs_item_ptr_offset(leaf, slot), btrfs_item_size(leaf, slot));
There is a spelling mistake in a btrfs warning message and in a comment. Fix them both. Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@gmail.com> --- fs/btrfs/scrub.c | 2 +- fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)