[PATCH] dec/tulip:fix repeated words in comments

[PATCH] dec/tulip:fix repeated words in comments

[Jilin Yuan]

Delete the redundant word 'this'.

Signed-off-by: Jilin Yuan <yuanjilin@cdjrlc.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/xircom_cb.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/xircom_cb.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/xircom_cb.c
index 8759f9f76b62..61825c9bd6be 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/xircom_cb.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/xircom_cb.c
@@ -742,7 +742,7 @@ static void activate_receiver(struct xircom_private *card)
 
 /*
 deactivate_receiver disables the receiver on the card.
-To achieve this this code disables the receiver first;
+To achieve this code disables the receiver first;
 then it waits for the receiver to become inactive.
 
 must be called with the lock held and interrupts disabled.
@@ -829,7 +829,7 @@ static void activate_transmitter(struct xircom_private *card)
 
 /*
 deactivate_transmitter disables the transmitter on the card.
-To achieve this this code disables the transmitter first;
+To achieve this code disables the transmitter first;
 then it waits for the transmitter to become inactive.
 
 must be called with the lock held and interrupts disabled.
-- 
2.36.1

Re: [PATCH] dec/tulip:fix repeated words in comments

[Helge Deller]

On 6/29/22 11:54, Jilin Yuan wrote:
> Delete the redundant word 'this'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jilin Yuan <yuanjilin@cdjrlc.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/xircom_cb.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/xircom_cb.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/xircom_cb.c
> index 8759f9f76b62..61825c9bd6be 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/xircom_cb.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/xircom_cb.c
> @@ -742,7 +742,7 @@ static void activate_receiver(struct xircom_private *card)
>
>  /*
>  deactivate_receiver disables the receiver on the card.
> -To achieve this this code disables the receiver first;
> +To achieve this code disables the receiver first;

No.
Instead it should be something like:
To achieve this, this code disables the receiver first; ...

but better look at the whole comment including the next line,
in which case it could become:

Disable the receiver first, then wait for it to become inactive.

...

>  then it waits for the receiver to become inactive.
>
>  must be called with the lock held and interrupts disabled.
> @@ -829,7 +829,7 @@ static void activate_transmitter(struct xircom_private *card)
>
>  /*
>  deactivate_transmitter disables the transmitter on the card.
> -To achieve this this code disables the transmitter first;
> +To achieve this code disables the transmitter first;
>  then it waits for the transmitter to become inactive.

same here...


>
>  must be called with the lock held and interrupts disabled.