[PATCH] Trivial fix for typos in comments.

[PATCH] Trivial fix for typos in comments.

[Nicholas D Steeves]

Trivial fix for typos in comments; I hope this patch isn't a nuisance!

Nicholas D Steeves (1):
  Trivial fix for typos in comments.

 fs/btrfs/disk-io.c     | 2 +-
 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +-
 fs/btrfs/file.c        | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

-- 
2.1.4

[PATCH] Trivial fix for typos in comments.

[Nicholas D Steeves]

Signed-off-by: Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/disk-io.c     | 2 +-
 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +-
 fs/btrfs/file.c        | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
index 50bed6c..c66c752 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
@@ -816,7 +816,7 @@ static void run_one_async_done(struct btrfs_work *work)
 	    waitqueue_active(&fs_info->async_submit_wait))
 		wake_up(&fs_info->async_submit_wait);
 
-	/* If an error occured we just want to clean up the bio and move on */
+	/* If an error occurred we just want to clean up the bio and move on */
 	if (async->error) {
 		async->bio->bi_error = async->error;
 		bio_endio(async->bio);
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index e2287c7..7ed61e9 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -5752,7 +5752,7 @@ out_fail:
 
 		/*
 		 * This is tricky, but first we need to figure out how much we
-		 * free'd from any free-ers that occured during this
+		 * free'd from any free-ers that occurred during this
 		 * reservation, so we reset ->csum_bytes to the csum_bytes
 		 * before we dropped our lock, and then call the free for the
 		 * number of bytes that were freed while we were trying our
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c
index af782fd..c2c378d 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/file.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c
@@ -1825,7 +1825,7 @@ static ssize_t btrfs_file_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb,
 	/*
 	 * We also have to set last_sub_trans to the current log transid,
 	 * otherwise subsequent syncs to a file that's been synced in this
-	 * transaction will appear to have already occured.
+	 * transaction will appear to have already occurred.
 	 */
 	spin_lock(&BTRFS_I(inode)->lock);
 	BTRFS_I(inode)->last_sub_trans = root->log_transid;
-- 
2.1.4

Re: [PATCH] Trivial fix for typos in comments.

[David Sterba]

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:13:29PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> Trivial fix for typos in comments; I hope this patch isn't a nuisance!

No, but I don't see the typos in any of the branches (master or the
for-next snapshots).

Re: [PATCH] Trivial fix for typos in comments.

[David Sterba]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 258 bytes --]

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:13:29PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> Trivial fix for typos in comments; I hope this patch isn't a nuisance!

I ran ispell on the strings from comments, there are like 90+ typos
(attached) that seem worth fixing, if you like.

[-- Attachment #2: btrfs-typos.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 981 bytes --]

antyhing
seperate alot
* any device where the flush fails with eopnotsupp are flagged as not-barrier
runnings
cums
exclsuive
snapshoted
valueable
join'ers
flighting
_write_no_snapshoting
ocassional
fuer
metada
destory
migth
acounting
snapshoted
informatoin
theres
snapshoting
unached
alrelady
releasead
opration
seperately
EXENT
qgroup ulit ?
chunk_muext
seach_key
delaloc
outsanding
serveral
overwritting
approciate
checkum.
dosen't
luckly
loged
eachother
highset
immediatelly
possibilites:
ktread
exlude
re-aqcuire
delted
skipp
checksumed
relaseing.
an dadd
alreay
directores
dellaloc
orhpan
overocmmitted
Persistantly
qgroup_shared_accouting
requried
assuptions
the reak key 
subvolme
garuntee
eailer
useable (?)
strore
csumm'ed
transction
succeedes.
refrence
splited
ommited.
artifical
reseravtion
adressable
manully
per-indoe
reserve orgi_bytes
refernece
plent
end_transaciton
refernece
qouta
tomake
snapshod
rtranid
noboody
We'v 
seperate
nowcow
commiting
wappers
gentelment

Re: [PATCH] Trivial fix for typos in comments.

[Nicholas D Steeves]

On 10 May 2016 at 09:33, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:13:29PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>> Trivial fix for typos in comments; I hope this patch isn't a nuisance!
>
> No, but I don't see the typos in any of the branches (master or the
> for-next snapshots).

Sorry, I used for-linus, while following this guide:
"git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git
for-linus"
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Writing_patch_for_btrfs

and "git checkout master" confirms that I'm already on 'master', but
"git rebase next" produces the error:

fatal: Needed a single revision
invalid upstream next

I'm very new to git.  Should I have cloned the whole linux-btrfs.git
without "for-linus"?  Am I on the a master branch for the for-linus
module, which is separate from the master branch of the main
linux-btrfs?

On 10 May 2016 at 10:20, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote:
Message-ID: <20160510142028.GU29353@twin.jikos.cz>
> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:13:29PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> I ran ispell on the strings from comments, there are like 90+ typos
> (attached) that seem worth fixing, if you like.

Thank you for the list, I'd be happy to.  Are patches against master
or next preferred (I don't see a for-next branch)?

Kind regards,
Nicholas

Re: [PATCH] Trivial fix for typos in comments.

[David Sterba]

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 07:42:50PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> On 10 May 2016 at 09:33, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:13:29PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> >> Trivial fix for typos in comments; I hope this patch isn't a nuisance!
> >
> > No, but I don't see the typos in any of the branches (master or the
> > for-next snapshots).
> 
> Sorry, I used for-linus, while following this guide:
> "git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git
> for-linus"
> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Writing_patch_for_btrfs
> 
> and "git checkout master" confirms that I'm already on 'master', but
> "git rebase next" produces the error:
> 
> fatal: Needed a single revision
> invalid upstream next

You'd need to have the linux-next git tree or my kernel.org tree
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux.git

> I'm very new to git.  Should I have cloned the whole linux-btrfs.git
> without "for-linus"?  Am I on the a master branch for the for-linus
> module, which is separate from the master branch of the main
> linux-btrfs?

If not sure, look at other branches, timestamps etc. The plain for-linus
in chris' repo is from january and on top of 4.3. There are other
for-linus branches with a version. There's no predefined style for
naming so it could be confusing. Git comes with a nice feature
'git instaweb' that will present the local git repository in a web
browser and it's very handy for quick peeks into other branches.

> On 10 May 2016 at 10:20, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote:
> Message-ID: <20160510142028.GU29353@twin.jikos.cz>
> > On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:13:29PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> > I ran ispell on the strings from comments, there are like 90+ typos
> > (attached) that seem worth fixing, if you like.
> 
> Thank you for the list, I'd be happy to.  Are patches against master
> or next preferred (I don't see a for-next branch)?

The for-next branch is in my kenrel.org repo, otherwise the snapshots
(named like for-next-20160510) are hosted in my development
repositories. Basing on master should be fine, the for-next branches are
sort of in flux so we could miss some typos from there, but no big deal.
The list I sent was from master sources.