Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 12:05 -0800, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 13:55 -0800, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> > > Generated with checkpatch.pl --fix-inplace and git add -p out of the
>> > > results.
>> >
>> > Maybe another.
>> >
>> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/platform/bcm2835/mmal-vchiq.c
>> > > b/drivers/staging/media/platform/bcm2835/mmal-vchiq.c
>> >
>> > []
>> > > @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ static int bulk_receive(struct vchiq_mmal_instance
>> > > *instance,
>> > > pr_err("buffer list empty trying to submit bulk
>> > > receive\n");
>> > >
>> > > /* todo: this is a serious error, we should never have
>> > > - * commited a buffer_to_host operation to the mmal
>> > > + * committed a buffer_to_host operation to the mmal
>> > > * port without the buffer to back it up (underflow
>> > > * handling) and there is no obvious way to deal with
>> > > * this - how is the mmal servie going to react when
>> >
>> > Perhaps s/servie/service/ ?
>>
>> I was trying to restrict this patch to just the fixes from checkpatch.
>
> That's the wrong thing to do if you're fixing
> spelling defects. checkpatch is just one mechanism
> to identify some, and definitely not all, typos and
> spelling defects.
>
> If you fixing, fix. Don't just rely on the brainless
> tools, use your decidedly non-mechanical brain."if you touch anything, you must fix everything." If that's how things work, I would just retract the patch.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
