| Message ID | 20240829-wifi-spell-v1-1-e0a8855482a9@kernel.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | wifi: cfg80211: wext: Correct spelling in iw_handler.h | expand |
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 06:07:00PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2024-08-29 at 17:03 +0100, Simon Horman wrote: > > Correct spelling in iw_handler.h. > > As reported by codespell. > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> > > --- > > include/net/iw_handler.h | 12 ++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/net/iw_handler.h b/include/net/iw_handler.h > > index b2cf243ebe44..f7f4c2a79b9e 100644 > > --- a/include/net/iw_handler.h > > +++ b/include/net/iw_handler.h > > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ > > * to handle wireless statistics. > > * > > * The initial APIs served us well and has proven a reasonably good design. > > - * However, there is a few shortcommings : > > + * However, there is a few shortcomings : > > If we're going to touch it, maybe that should also say "there are a few > shortcomings"? :) Yes, indeed :) > But is it worth it at all? This stuff is totally on the way out, so all > the thing about "proven a reasonably good design", well, didn't really > pan out in practice... I think if the text is there it may as well be correct. But if you prefer to leave it as is, then we can drop this topic.
On Mon, 2024-09-02 at 10:01 +0100, Simon Horman wrote: > > But is it worth it at all? This stuff is totally on the way out, so all > > the thing about "proven a reasonably good design", well, didn't really > > pan out in practice... > > I think if the text is there it may as well be correct. > But if you prefer to leave it as is, then we can drop this topic. Sure, that's fair, I'm happy to apply patches updating the grammar/spelling by itself. No need to go into full rewrite and/or historic debates about the design :) johannes
On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 11:11:11AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2024-09-02 at 10:01 +0100, Simon Horman wrote: > > > But is it worth it at all? This stuff is totally on the way out, so all > > > the thing about "proven a reasonably good design", well, didn't really > > > pan out in practice... > > > > I think if the text is there it may as well be correct. > > But if you prefer to leave it as is, then we can drop this topic. > > Sure, that's fair, I'm happy to apply patches updating the > grammar/spelling by itself. No need to go into full rewrite and/or > historic debates about the design :) Thanks, I agree. I have sent a v2, which addresses the grammar issue that you flagged. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20240903-wifi-spell-v2-1-bfcf7062face@kernel.org/ I did look for other grammar issues on other lines that are already updated by that patch: you can get a laugh when you find something obvious. I didn't check any further, because this seems to be enough for now. But I can if you like.
diff --git a/include/net/iw_handler.h b/include/net/iw_handler.h index b2cf243ebe44..f7f4c2a79b9e 100644 --- a/include/net/iw_handler.h +++ b/include/net/iw_handler.h @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ * to handle wireless statistics. * * The initial APIs served us well and has proven a reasonably good design. - * However, there is a few shortcommings : + * However, there is a few shortcomings : * o No events, everything is a request to the driver. * o Large ioctl function in driver with gigantic switch statement * (i.e. spaghetti code). @@ -38,13 +38,13 @@ * ------------------------------- * The new driver API is just a bunch of standard functions (handlers), * each handling a specific Wireless Extension. The driver just export - * the list of handler it supports, and those will be called apropriately. + * the list of handler it supports, and those will be called appropriately. * * I tried to keep the main advantage of the previous API (simplicity, * efficiency and light weight), and also I provide a good dose of backward * compatibility (most structures are the same, driver can use both API * simultaneously, ...). - * Hopefully, I've also addressed the shortcomming of the initial API. + * Hopefully, I've also addressed the shortcoming of the initial API. * * The advantage of the new API are : * o Handling of Extensions in driver broken in small contained functions @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ /* ---------------------- THE IMPLEMENTATION ---------------------- */ /* - * Some of the choice I've made are pretty controversials. Defining an + * Some of the choice I've made are pretty controversial. Defining an * API is very much weighting compromises. This goes into some of the * details and the thinking behind the implementation. * @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ * example to distinguish setting max rate and basic rate), I would * break the prototype. Using iwreq_data is more flexible. * 3) Also, the above form is not generic (see above). - * 4) I don't expect driver developper using the wrong field of the + * 4) I don't expect driver developer using the wrong field of the * union (Doh !), so static typechecking doesn't add much value. * 5) Lastly, you can skip the union by doing : * static int mydriver_ioctl_setrate(struct net_device *dev, @@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ int iw_handler_get_thrspy(struct net_device *dev, struct iw_request_info *info, void wireless_spy_update(struct net_device *dev, unsigned char *address, struct iw_quality *wstats); -/************************* INLINE FUNTIONS *************************/ +/************************* INLINE FUNCTIONS *************************/ /* * Function that are so simple that it's more efficient inlining them */
Correct spelling in iw_handler.h. As reported by codespell. Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> --- include/net/iw_handler.h | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)