From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D575AC433EF for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 07:16:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Lrrv61GZcz3bcc for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 17:16:34 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=inria.fr header.i=@inria.fr header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=dc header.b=aKKl4kYK; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=inria.fr (client-ip=192.134.164.104; helo=mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from=julia.lawall@inria.fr; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=inria.fr header.i=@inria.fr header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=dc header.b=aKKl4kYK; dkim-atps=neutral X-Greylist: delayed 65 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at boromir; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 17:15:54 AEST Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4LrrtL1Rblz30Qc for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 17:15:53 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inria.fr; s=dc; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:mime-version; bh=kG1YFRKxcbq+zSs5VKV9a0lQuS4b8911u6IYa7dyiHw=; b=aKKl4kYK8n9zjT/c1/cJvvic1NAhsKv0FOIN5j3RC+V/+fWiI7v/dPwZ Ca4UHnD0aHeNsfSoWctcyarLicKm2J2sr+8Ydk0IZwX2RJH8oJW/vjplE /7LoxvrdS+zYQktwNaL5TeV9WbvH+FONXwMFmMaJL2xu8JepDCbDBpbyo E=; Authentication-Results: mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=SoftFail smtp.mailfrom=julia.lawall@inria.fr; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) d=inria.fr X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,192,1654552800"; d="scan'208";a="20053995" Received: from dt-lawall.paris.inria.fr ([128.93.67.65]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Jul 2022 09:14:44 +0200 Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2022 09:14:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: julia@hadrien To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/kvm: fix repeated words in comments Delete the redundant word 'that'. In-Reply-To: <87bktdd6s8.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> Message-ID: References: <20220724062920.1551-1-wangjianli@cdjrlc.com> <87bktdd6s8.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Julia.Lawall@inria.fr, paulus@samba.org, liubo03@inspur.com, wangjianli , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Mon, 25 Jul 2022, Michael Ellerman wrote: > wangjianli writes: > > Signed-off-by: wangjianli > > --- > > arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c > > index 514fd45c1994..73c6db20cd8a 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c > > @@ -1601,7 +1601,7 @@ long kvm_vm_ioctl_resize_hpt_commit(struct kvm *kvm, > > * is valid, it is written to the HPT as if an H_ENTER with the > > * exact flag set was done. When the invalid count is non-zero > > * in the header written to the stream, the kernel will make > > - * sure that that many HPTEs are invalid, and invalidate them > > + * sure that many HPTEs are invalid, and invalidate them > > * if not. > > The existing wording is correct: > > "the kernel will make sure that ... that many HPTEs are invalid" Maybe it would be better as "that the number of invalid HPTEs is the same as the invalid count"? julia