[PATCH] wifi: cfg80211: wext: Correct spelling in iw_handler.h

[PATCH] wifi: cfg80211: wext: Correct spelling in iw_handler.h

[Simon Horman]

Correct spelling in iw_handler.h.
As reported by codespell.

Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
---
 include/net/iw_handler.h | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/net/iw_handler.h b/include/net/iw_handler.h
index b2cf243ebe44..f7f4c2a79b9e 100644
--- a/include/net/iw_handler.h
+++ b/include/net/iw_handler.h
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
  * to handle wireless statistics.
  *
  * The initial APIs served us well and has proven a reasonably good design.
- * However, there is a few shortcommings :
+ * However, there is a few shortcomings :
  *	o No events, everything is a request to the driver.
  *	o Large ioctl function in driver with gigantic switch statement
  *	  (i.e. spaghetti code).
@@ -38,13 +38,13 @@
  * -------------------------------
  * The new driver API is just a bunch of standard functions (handlers),
  * each handling a specific Wireless Extension. The driver just export
- * the list of handler it supports, and those will be called apropriately.
+ * the list of handler it supports, and those will be called appropriately.
  *
  * I tried to keep the main advantage of the previous API (simplicity,
  * efficiency and light weight), and also I provide a good dose of backward
  * compatibility (most structures are the same, driver can use both API
  * simultaneously, ...).
- * Hopefully, I've also addressed the shortcomming of the initial API.
+ * Hopefully, I've also addressed the shortcoming of the initial API.
  *
  * The advantage of the new API are :
  *	o Handling of Extensions in driver broken in small contained functions
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@
 
 /* ---------------------- THE IMPLEMENTATION ---------------------- */
 /*
- * Some of the choice I've made are pretty controversials. Defining an
+ * Some of the choice I've made are pretty controversial. Defining an
  * API is very much weighting compromises. This goes into some of the
  * details and the thinking behind the implementation.
  *
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@
  * example to distinguish setting max rate and basic rate), I would
  * break the prototype. Using iwreq_data is more flexible.
  * 3) Also, the above form is not generic (see above).
- * 4) I don't expect driver developper using the wrong field of the
+ * 4) I don't expect driver developer using the wrong field of the
  * union (Doh !), so static typechecking doesn't add much value.
  * 5) Lastly, you can skip the union by doing :
  *	static int mydriver_ioctl_setrate(struct net_device *dev,
@@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ int iw_handler_get_thrspy(struct net_device *dev, struct iw_request_info *info,
 void wireless_spy_update(struct net_device *dev, unsigned char *address,
 			 struct iw_quality *wstats);
 
-/************************* INLINE FUNTIONS *************************/
+/************************* INLINE FUNCTIONS *************************/
 /*
  * Function that are so simple that it's more efficient inlining them
  */

Re: [PATCH] wifi: cfg80211: wext: Correct spelling in iw_handler.h

[Johannes Berg]

On Thu, 2024-08-29 at 17:03 +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> Correct spelling in iw_handler.h.
> As reported by codespell.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
> ---
>  include/net/iw_handler.h | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/net/iw_handler.h b/include/net/iw_handler.h
> index b2cf243ebe44..f7f4c2a79b9e 100644
> --- a/include/net/iw_handler.h
> +++ b/include/net/iw_handler.h
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
>   * to handle wireless statistics.
>   *
>   * The initial APIs served us well and has proven a reasonably good design.
> - * However, there is a few shortcommings :
> + * However, there is a few shortcomings :

If we're going to touch it, maybe that should also say "there are a few
shortcomings"? :)

But is it worth it at all? This stuff is totally on the way out, so all
the thing about "proven a reasonably good design", well, didn't really
pan out in practice...

johannes

Re: [PATCH] wifi: cfg80211: wext: Correct spelling in iw_handler.h

[Simon Horman]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 06:07:00PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-08-29 at 17:03 +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > Correct spelling in iw_handler.h.
> > As reported by codespell.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  include/net/iw_handler.h | 12 ++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/net/iw_handler.h b/include/net/iw_handler.h
> > index b2cf243ebe44..f7f4c2a79b9e 100644
> > --- a/include/net/iw_handler.h
> > +++ b/include/net/iw_handler.h
> > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
> >   * to handle wireless statistics.
> >   *
> >   * The initial APIs served us well and has proven a reasonably good design.
> > - * However, there is a few shortcommings :
> > + * However, there is a few shortcomings :
> 
> If we're going to touch it, maybe that should also say "there are a few
> shortcomings"? :)

Yes, indeed :)

> But is it worth it at all? This stuff is totally on the way out, so all
> the thing about "proven a reasonably good design", well, didn't really
> pan out in practice...

I think if the text is there it may as well be correct.
But if you prefer to leave it as is, then we can drop this topic.

Re: [PATCH] wifi: cfg80211: wext: Correct spelling in iw_handler.h

[Johannes Berg]

On Mon, 2024-09-02 at 10:01 +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > But is it worth it at all? This stuff is totally on the way out, so all
> > the thing about "proven a reasonably good design", well, didn't really
> > pan out in practice...
> 
> I think if the text is there it may as well be correct.
> But if you prefer to leave it as is, then we can drop this topic.

Sure, that's fair, I'm happy to apply patches updating the
grammar/spelling by itself. No need to go into full rewrite and/or
historic debates about the design :)

johannes

Re: [PATCH] wifi: cfg80211: wext: Correct spelling in iw_handler.h

[Simon Horman]

On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 11:11:11AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-09-02 at 10:01 +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > But is it worth it at all? This stuff is totally on the way out, so all
> > > the thing about "proven a reasonably good design", well, didn't really
> > > pan out in practice...
> > 
> > I think if the text is there it may as well be correct.
> > But if you prefer to leave it as is, then we can drop this topic.
> 
> Sure, that's fair, I'm happy to apply patches updating the
> grammar/spelling by itself. No need to go into full rewrite and/or
> historic debates about the design :)

Thanks, I agree.

I have sent a v2, which addresses the grammar issue that you flagged.

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20240903-wifi-spell-v2-1-bfcf7062face@kernel.org/

I did look for other grammar issues on other lines that are already
updated by that patch: you can get a laugh when you find something obvious.

I didn't check any further, because this seems to be enough for now.
But I can if you like.