From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751462AbdKVTVa (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:21:30 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0124.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.124]:57833 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751249AbdKVTV3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:21:29 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1538:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3351:3622:3865:3866:3867:3874:4043:4321:5007:7903:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12048:12740:12760:12895:13069:13255:13311:13357:13439:14659:14721:21080:21627:30054:30090:30091,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:1,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: sort25_46c2ce5877d0d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1627 Message-ID: <1511378484.6989.104.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] NTB: switchtec_ntb: fix spelling mistake: "peforming" -> "performing" From: Joe Perches To: Logan Gunthorpe , Colin King , Kurt Schwemmer , Jon Mason , Dave Jiang , Allen Hubbe , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-ntb@googlegroups.com Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:21:24 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20171121225945.29377-1-colin.king@canonical.com> <1511320389.6989.44.camel@perches.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.1-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 11:53 -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > On 21/11/17 08:13 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > probably nicer to add the missing newlines too. > > Oh, my mistake. > > I was never sure what was correct so I think I've been pretty lax about > that. I'll clean that up. > > Seems like something that should be added to checkpatch. I may attempt a > patch for that. Good luck but I think that's fairly difficult to do well without too high a ratio of false-positives.