@@ -814,7 +814,7 @@ bool rtl88ee_is_tx_desc_closed(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, u8 hw_queue, u16 index)u8own=(u8)rtl88ee_get_desc(hw,entry,true,HW_DESC_OWN);/*beacon packet will only use the first-*descriptordefautly,andtheownmaynot+*descriptorde-faulty,andtheownmaynot*beclearedbythehardware*/if(own)--
@@ -814,7 +814,7 @@ bool rtl88ee_is_tx_desc_closed(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, u8 hw_queue, u16 index)u8own=(u8)rtl88ee_get_desc(hw,entry,true,HW_DESC_OWN);/*beacon packet will only use the first-*descriptordefautly,andtheownmaynot+*descriptorde-faulty,andtheownmaynot
Really? "de-faultly" isn't any better than "defaultly" and in fact
it's even worse as it breaks up the word "default".
This change doesn't make sense and the comment really needs to be
completely re-written by someone who understands what's going on here
as it barely makes sense.
Thanks,
--
Julian Calaby
Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
@@ -814,7 +814,7 @@ bool rtl88ee_is_tx_desc_closed(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, u8 hw_queue, u16 index)u8own=(u8)rtl88ee_get_desc(hw,entry,true,HW_DESC_OWN);/*beacon packet will only use the first-*descriptordefautly,andtheownmaynot+*descriptorde-faulty,andtheownmaynot
Really? "de-faultly" isn't any better than "defaultly" and in fact
it's even worse as it breaks up the word "default".
hey, it was written as "defautly" ...and that was simple spelling mistake ..
so,corrected it.
This change doesn't make sense and the comment really needs to be
completely re-written by someone who understands what's going on here
as it barely makes sense.
Thanks,
--
Julian Calaby
Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
@@ -814,7 +814,7 @@ bool rtl88ee_is_tx_desc_closed(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, u8 hw_queue, u16 index)u8own=(u8)rtl88ee_get_desc(hw,entry,true,HW_DESC_OWN);/*beacon packet will only use the first-*descriptordefautly,andtheownmaynot+*descriptorde-faulty,andtheownmaynot
Really? "de-faultly" isn't any better than "defaultly" and in fact
it's even worse as it breaks up the word "default".
hey, it was written as "defautly" ...and that was simple spelling mistake ..
so,corrected it.
Er, no, that isn't the correct replacement. They're using "default" as
a verb and mean "by default".
The sentence makes no sense with "de-faulty" there instead.
Ultimately though the entire comment barely makes sense, so the best
way to fix this spelling mistake is to re-write the entire comment so
it does. I would have suggested a new wording for it, but I don't know
enough about what's going on here to parse the rest of it.
So therefore someone who knows what's going on here needs to fix this
and your change is just making this comment worse.
Thanks,
--
Julian Calaby
Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
@@ -814,7 +814,7 @@ bool rtl88ee_is_tx_desc_closed(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, u8 hw_queue, u16 index)u8own=(u8)rtl88ee_get_desc(hw,entry,true,HW_DESC_OWN);/*beacon packet will only use the first-*descriptordefautly,andtheownmaynot+*descriptorde-faulty,andtheownmaynot
Really? "de-faultly" isn't any better than "defaultly" and in fact
it's even worse as it breaks up the word "default".
hey, it was written as "defautly" ...and that was simple spelling mistake ..
so,corrected it.
Er, no, that isn't the correct replacement. They're using "default" as
a verb and mean "by default".
The sentence makes no sense with "de-faulty" there instead.
Ultimately though the entire comment barely makes sense, so the best
way to fix this spelling mistake is to re-write the entire comment so
it does. I would have suggested a new wording for it, but I don't know
hmmmm make sense...
enough about what's going on here to parse the rest of it.
So therefore someone who knows what's going on here needs to fix this
and your change is just making this comment worse.
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> Date: 2021-01-05 11:56:26
On Tue, 2021-01-05 at 17:11 +0530, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:
On 22:24 Tue 05 Jan 2021, Julian Calaby wrote:
quoted
Hi Bhaskar,
[]
quoted
and your change is just making this comment worse.
really??? Not sure about it.
I agree with Julian. I'm fairly sure it's worse.
The change you suggest doesn't parse well and is extremely odd.
If you _really_ want to just change this use (and the others),
I repeat his suggestion of "by default".
@@ -814,7 +814,7 @@ bool rtl88ee_is_tx_desc_closed(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, u8 hw_queue, u16 index)u8own=(u8)rtl88ee_get_desc(hw,entry,true,HW_DESC_OWN);/*beacon packet will only use the first-*descriptordefautly,andtheownmaynot+*descriptorde-faulty,andtheownmaynot*beclearedbythehardware*/if(own)--
Yes, I agree with "by default". I don't know what "the own"
means.
Also, there should be a space after each beginning "*.
I saw another patch where the comment block began with /**,
which should mean "begin kernel-doc comment block", but it's
not kernel-doc, so that /** should be changed to just "/*".
--
~Randy
From: Larry Finger <hidden> Date: 2021-01-05 18:10:04
On 1/5/21 5:55 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Tue, 2021-01-05 at 17:11 +0530, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:
quoted
On 22:24 Tue 05 Jan 2021, Julian Calaby wrote:
quoted
Hi Bhaskar,
[]
quoted
quoted
and your change is just making this comment worse.
really??? Not sure about it.
I agree with Julian. I'm fairly sure it's worse.
The change you suggest doesn't parse well and is extremely odd.
If you _really_ want to just change this use (and the others),
I repeat his suggestion of "by default".
I agree with Julian and Joe. Your suggested change makes it worse!
To match ALL previous commits/patches for these drivers, the subject should be
"rtlwifi: <driver_name>: Fix description of usage of own bit in descriptor"
For all drivers, that comment should be written as:
/* By default, a beacon packet will only use the first
* descriptor and the own bit may not be cleared by the hardware
*/
Larry
@@ -814,7 +814,7 @@ bool rtl88ee_is_tx_desc_closed(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, u8 hw_queue, u16 index)u8own=(u8)rtl88ee_get_desc(hw,entry,true,HW_DESC_OWN);/*beacon packet will only use the first-*descriptordefautly,andtheownmaynot+*descriptorde-faulty,andtheownmaynot*beclearedbythehardware*/if(own)--
Yes, I agree with "by default". I don't know what "the own"
means.
Also, there should be a space after each beginning "*.
I saw another patch where the comment block began with /**,
which should mean "begin kernel-doc comment block", but it's
not kernel-doc, so that /** should be changed to just "/*".
Good point Randy, there were several driver file witch have "defautly" in it
and I tried to correct that.Only that spell made it a "de-faulty" as dic
suggested . But I think it should be "by default" as you said.
The comment beginning part , let me hunt down that and fix it as you mentioned
the way it should be.
Thanks Randy.
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> Date: 2021-01-06 16:21:46
On Wed, 2021-01-06 at 18:48 +0530, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:
Good point Randy, there were several driver file witch have "defautly" in it
and I tried to correct that.Only that spell made it a "de-faulty" as dic
suggested . But I think it should be "by default" as you said.
What tool suggested 'de-faulty' with a dash between de and faulty"
I don't believe it was codespell.
$ codespell drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8188ee/trx.c
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8188ee/trx.c:61: cacluated ==> calculated
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8188ee/trx.c:190: cacluated ==> calculated
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8188ee/trx.c:435: managment ==> management
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8188ee/trx.c:817: defautly ==> defaultly
Nor checkpatch:
$ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f --terse --nosummary --types=typo_spelling drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8188ee/trx.c
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8188ee/trx.c:61: CHECK: 'cacluated' may be misspelled - perhaps 'calculated'?
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8188ee/trx.c:190: CHECK: 'cacluated' may be misspelled - perhaps 'calculated'?
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8188ee/trx.c:435: CHECK: 'managment' may be misspelled - perhaps 'management'?