[PATCH][next] btrfs: Fix spelling mistake "geneartion" -> "generation"

[PATCH][next] btrfs: Fix spelling mistake "geneartion" -> "generation"

[Colin Ian King]

There is a spelling mistake in a btrfs warning message and in a comment.
Fix them both.

Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@gmail.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/scrub.c        | 2 +-
 fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
index 10c26bc8e60e..a5d026041be4 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
@@ -2106,7 +2106,7 @@ static int scrub_checksum_tree_block(struct scrub_block *sblock)
 		sblock->header_error = 1;
 		sblock->generation_error = 1;
 		btrfs_warn_rl(fs_info,
-		"tree block %llu mirror %u has bad geneartion, has %llu want %llu",
+		"tree block %llu mirror %u has bad generation, has %llu want %llu",
 			      sblock->logical, sblock->mirror_num,
 			      btrfs_stack_header_generation(h),
 			      sector->generation);
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
index baad1ed7e111..32cd06f7660e 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
@@ -1144,7 +1144,7 @@ static int check_root_item(struct extent_buffer *leaf, struct btrfs_key *key,
 	/*
 	 * For legacy root item, the members starting at generation_v2 will be
 	 * all filled with 0.
-	 * And since we allow geneartion_v2 as 0, it will still pass the check.
+	 * And since we allow generation_v2 as 0, it will still pass the check.
 	 */
 	read_extent_buffer(leaf, &ri, btrfs_item_ptr_offset(leaf, slot),
 			   btrfs_item_size(leaf, slot));
-- 
2.30.2

Re: [PATCH][next] btrfs: Fix spelling mistake "geneartion" -> "generation"

[David Sterba]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 09:38:47AM +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
> There is a spelling mistake in a btrfs warning message and in a comment.
> Fix them both.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@gmail.com>
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/scrub.c        | 2 +-
>  fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> index 10c26bc8e60e..a5d026041be4 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> @@ -2106,7 +2106,7 @@ static int scrub_checksum_tree_block(struct scrub_block *sblock)
>  		sblock->header_error = 1;
>  		sblock->generation_error = 1;
>  		btrfs_warn_rl(fs_info,
> -		"tree block %llu mirror %u has bad geneartion, has %llu want %llu",
> +		"tree block %llu mirror %u has bad generation, has %llu want %llu",

Folded to the patch, thanks.

>  			      sblock->logical, sblock->mirror_num,
>  			      btrfs_stack_header_generation(h),
>  			      sector->generation);
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> index baad1ed7e111..32cd06f7660e 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> @@ -1144,7 +1144,7 @@ static int check_root_item(struct extent_buffer *leaf, struct btrfs_key *key,
>  	/*
>  	 * For legacy root item, the members starting at generation_v2 will be
>  	 * all filled with 0.
> -	 * And since we allow geneartion_v2 as 0, it will still pass the check.
> +	 * And since we allow generation_v2 as 0, it will still pass the check.

This has been there for some time and codespell does not catch it,
probably due to "_v2".

What else I found in current misc-next:

./raid56.c:1001: numer ==> number
./raid56.c:1186: veritical ==> vertical
./raid56.c:1360: Uptodate ==> Up-to-date
./raid56.c:1524: behaviro ==> behavior
./raid56.c:1768: veritical ==> vertical
./raid56.h:68: Numer ==> Number
./raid56.h:135: exlcuding ==> excluding
./extent-io-tree.c:1628: Searche ==> Search, searched
./super.c:2053: goup ==> group
./volumes.c:730: constitutent ==> constituent
./bio.c:286: sychronously ==> synchronously
./compression.c:799: priting ==> printing
./compression.c:1645: uncompressible ==> incompressible
./compression.c:1645: uncompressible ==> incompressible
./disk-io.c:770: Retrun ==> Return
./disk-io.c:771: succesfuly ==> successfully
./scrub.c:232: archtectures ==> architectures

I'd rather apply one patch for all the typo fixes, can you do that
please? The above is only from codespell I haven't looked if the
suggestions are actually correct. Thanks.

Re: [PATCH][next] btrfs: Fix spelling mistake "geneartion" -> "generation"

[David Sterba]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 11:00:40AM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
> There are a handful of spelling mistakes of generation. Fix them.

Thanks for spotting it, seems that 'geneartion' is Qu's favourite typo,
I'll fix it in the topic branch.

[PATCH][next] btrfs: Fix spelling mistake "geneartion" -> "generation"

[Colin Ian King]

There are a handful of spelling mistakes of generation. Fix them.

Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@gmail.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/scrub.c        | 4 ++--
 fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
index ccb4f58ae307..82e6b98878a8 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ struct scrub_sector_verification {
 		/*
 		 * Extra info for metadata verification.
 		 * All sectors inside a tree block shares the same
-		 * geneartion.
+		 * generation.
 		 */
 		u64 generation;
 	};
@@ -712,7 +712,7 @@ static void scrub_verify_one_metadata(struct scrub_stripe *stripe, int sector_nr
 		bitmap_set(&stripe->error_bitmap, sector_nr,
 			   sectors_per_tree);
 		btrfs_warn_rl(fs_info,
-		"tree block %llu mirror %u has bad geneartion, has %llu want %llu",
+		"tree block %llu mirror %u has bad generation, has %llu want %llu",
 			      logical, stripe->mirror_num,
 			      btrfs_stack_header_generation(header),
 			      stripe->sectors[sector_nr].generation);
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
index e2b54793bf0c..f106a50e6900 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
@@ -1158,7 +1158,7 @@ static int check_root_item(struct extent_buffer *leaf, struct btrfs_key *key,
 	/*
 	 * For legacy root item, the members starting at generation_v2 will be
 	 * all filled with 0.
-	 * And since we allow geneartion_v2 as 0, it will still pass the check.
+	 * And since we allow generation_v2 as 0, it will still pass the check.
 	 */
 	read_extent_buffer(leaf, &ri, btrfs_item_ptr_offset(leaf, slot),
 			   btrfs_item_size(leaf, slot));
-- 
2.30.2