Re: [V2][PATCH] atm: horizon: Fix spelling mistakes in TX comment

On 8/8/21 12:58 AM, Joe Perches wrote:

[Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]

On Sat, 2021-08-07 at 23:38 +0800, Jun Miao wrote:

quoted

It's "must not", not "musn't", meaning "shall not".
Let's fix that.

Suggested-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Signed-off-by: Jun Miao <redacted>
---
  drivers/atm/horizon.c | 6 +++---
  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/atm/horizon.c b/drivers/atm/horizon.c
index 4f2951cbe69c..9ee494bc5c51 100644
--- a/drivers/atm/horizon.c
+++ b/drivers/atm/horizon.c

@@ -2167,10 +2167,10 @@ static int hrz_open (struct atm_vcc *atm_vcc)


    // Part of the job is done by atm_pcr_goal which gives us a PCR
    // specification which says: EITHER grab the maximum available PCR
-  // (and perhaps a lower bound which we musn't pass), OR grab this
+  // (and perhaps a lower bound which we mustn't pass), OR grab this

I meant to suggest you change the patch to use "must not" not
the commit message.

Please ignore this e-mail. Sorry, confuse the mailing list.

I am so careless to forget change there. After this 2 minutest, i send 
new  same V2(in fact should v3 but forgive for a freshman)

quoted

    // amount, rounding down if you have to (and perhaps a lower bound
-  // which we musn't pass) OR grab this amount, rounding up if you
-  // have to (and perhaps an upper bound which we musn't pass). If any
+  // which we mustn't pass) OR grab this amount, rounding up if you
+  // have to (and perhaps an upper bound which we mustn't pass). If any
    // bounds ARE passed we fail. Note that rounding is only rounding to
    // match device limitations, we do not round down to satisfy
    // bandwidth availability even if this would not violate any given