Re: [PATCH] include/linux: fix some typos

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 07:48:37PM +0800, Shile Zhang wrote:
> s/Not/Note/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shile Zhang <shile.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>

Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>

Or I can take it if no one else wants it.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> ---
>  include/linux/list_nulls.h | 4 ++--
>  include/linux/once.h       | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/list_nulls.h b/include/linux/list_nulls.h
> index fa6e8471bd22..c845761fe5de 100644
> --- a/include/linux/list_nulls.h
> +++ b/include/linux/list_nulls.h
> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static inline unsigned long get_nulls_value(const struct hlist_nulls_node *ptr)
>   * hlist_nulls_unhashed - Has node been removed and reinitialized?
>   * @h: Node to be checked
>   *
> - * Not that not all removal functions will leave a node in unhashed state.
> + * Note that not all removal functions will leave a node in unhashed state.
>   * For example, hlist_del_init_rcu() leaves the node in unhashed state,
>   * but hlist_nulls_del() does not.
>   */
> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ static inline int hlist_nulls_unhashed(const struct hlist_nulls_node *h)
>   * hlist_nulls_unhashed_lockless - Has node been removed and reinitialized?
>   * @h: Node to be checked
>   *
> - * Not that not all removal functions will leave a node in unhashed state.
> + * Note that not all removal functions will leave a node in unhashed state.
>   * For example, hlist_del_init_rcu() leaves the node in unhashed state,
>   * but hlist_nulls_del() does not.  Unlike hlist_nulls_unhashed(), this
>   * function may be used locklessly.
> diff --git a/include/linux/once.h b/include/linux/once.h
> index 9225ee6d96c7..095c6debd63b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/once.h
> +++ b/include/linux/once.h
> @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ void __do_once_done(bool *done, struct static_key_true *once_key,
>   * out the condition into a nop. DO_ONCE() guarantees type safety of
>   * arguments!
>   *
> - * Not that the following is not equivalent ...
> + * Note that the following is not equivalent ...
>   *
>   *   DO_ONCE(func, arg);
>   *   DO_ONCE(func, arg);
> -- 
> 2.24.0.rc2
>