Re: [PATCH UPDATED] ext2: trivial: fix typo on comments in ext2/inode.c

[Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Namhyung Kim wrote:

> 
> 'excpet' should be 'except'.
> 'ext3_get_branch' should be 'ext2_get_branch'.
>     
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
> ---
> I found another one.
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext2/inode.c b/fs/ext2/inode.c
> index 940c961..533699c 100644
> --- a/fs/ext2/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext2/inode.c
> @@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ failed_out:
>   *     the same format as ext2_get_branch() would do. We are calling it after
>   *     we had read the existing part of chain and partial points to the last
>   *     triple of that (one with zero ->key). Upon the exit we have the same
> - *     picture as after the successful ext2_get_block(), excpet that in one
> + *     picture as after the successful ext2_get_block(), except that in one
>   *     place chain is disconnected - *branch->p is still zero (we did not
>   *     set the last link), but branch->key contains the number that should
>   *     be placed into *branch->p to fill that gap.
> @@ -662,7 +662,7 @@ static int ext2_get_blocks(struct inode *inode,
>         mutex_lock(&ei->truncate_mutex);
>         /*
>          * If the indirect block is missing while we are reading
> -        * the chain(ext3_get_branch() returns -EAGAIN err), or
> +        * the chain(ext2_get_branch() returns -EAGAIN err), or
>          * if the chain has been changed after we grab the semaphore,
>          * (either because another process truncated this branch, or
>          * another get_block allocated this branch) re-grab the chain to see if

Applied.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.