[PATCH 18/21]include:net:mac80211.h remove one to many l's in the word.

[PATCH 18/21]include:net:mac80211.h remove one to many l's in the word.

[Justin P. Mattock]

The patch below removes an extra "l" in the word.

Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock@gmail.com>

---
 include/net/mac80211.h |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/net/mac80211.h b/include/net/mac80211.h
index 62c0ce2..04c3fe5 100644
--- a/include/net/mac80211.h
+++ b/include/net/mac80211.h
@@ -1349,7 +1349,7 @@ ieee80211_get_alt_retry_rate(const struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
  * DOC: Beacon filter support
  *
  * Some hardware have beacon filter support to reduce host cpu wakeups
- * which will reduce system power consumption. It usuallly works so that
+ * which will reduce system power consumption. It usually works so that
  * the firmware creates a checksum of the beacon but omits all constantly
  * changing elements (TSF, TIM etc). Whenever the checksum changes the
  * beacon is forwarded to the host, otherwise it will be just dropped. That
-- 
1.7.4.1

Re: [PATCH 18/21]include:net:mac80211.h remove one to many l's in the word.

[Julian Calaby]

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 17:15, Justin P. Mattock
<justinmattock@gmail.com> wrote:
> The patch below removes an extra "l" in the word.

Random thought:

Not that I'm complaining about your work here, and not that commits
are a finite resource, but would it be possible for you to collect
your spelling changes into slightly bigger commits before sending them
off?

E.g. instead of sending off 21 patches to remove 21 erroneous l's, why
not do a full spelling check on these 21 files, then send off 21
patches to fix *all* the spelling mistakes in each file? You could
even group them up by directory if you liked.

Thanks,

-- 

Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
.Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/

Re: [PATCH 18/21]include:net:mac80211.h remove one to many l's in the word.

[Justin Mattock]

On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:20 PM, Julian Calaby wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 17:15, Justin P. Mattock
> <justinmattock@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The patch below removes an extra "l" in the word.
>
> Random thought:
>
> Not that I'm complaining about your work here, and not that commits
> are a finite resource, but would it be possible for you to collect
> your spelling changes into slightly bigger commits before sending them
> off?
>
> E.g. instead of sending off 21 patches to remove 21 erroneous l's, why
> not do a full spelling check on these 21 files, then send off 21
> patches to fix *all* the spelling mistakes in each file? You could
> even group them up by directory if you liked.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --  
>
> Julian Calaby
>
> Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com
> Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
> .Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/


yeah.. I agree, its just people have said that I should individually
send each patch to each maintainer subsystem etc...
(rather would just send one with everything on it, but then might make  
things more confusing)

Justin P. Mattock

Re: [PATCH 18/21]include:net:mac80211.h remove one to many l's in the word.

[Jiri Kosina]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Julian Calaby wrote:

> <justinmattock@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The patch below removes an extra "l" in the word.
> 
> Random thought:
> 
> Not that I'm complaining about your work here, and not that commits
> are a finite resource, but would it be possible for you to collect
> your spelling changes into slightly bigger commits before sending them
> off?

Which is what I usually do with Justin's patches anyway when applying them 
-- I fold them all into one patch. It'd be nicer if I get them in such 
form already, yes.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Re: [PATCH 18/21]include:net:mac80211.h remove one to many l's in the word.

[Johannes Berg]

On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 23:10 -0800, Justin Mattock wrote:

[please trim your quotes]

> yeah.. I agree, its just people have said that I should individually
> send each patch to each maintainer subsystem etc...
> (rather would just send one with everything on it, but then might make  
> things more confusing)

I for one trust Jiri, and don't even need to see patches like this.
Certainly not the entire "maintainer chain" and multiple mailing lists!

johannes