Re: [PATCH] io_uring: fix some spelling mistakes in comment

[Ammar Faizi]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 05:12:42PM +0800, Yu Zhe wrote:
> @@ -2822,7 +2822,7 @@ static __cold void io_tctx_exit_cb(struct callback_head *cb)
>  	 * When @in_idle, we're in cancellation and it's racy to remove the
>  	 * node. It'll be removed by the end of cancellation, just ignore it.
>  	 * tctx can be NULL if the queueing of this task_work raced with
> -	 * work cancelation off the exec path.
> +	 * work cancellation off the exec path.
>  	 */
>  	if (tctx && !atomic_read(&tctx->in_idle))
>  		io_uring_del_tctx_node((unsigned long)work->ctx);
> @@ -3095,7 +3095,7 @@ __cold void io_uring_cancel_generic(bool cancel_all, struct io_sq_data *sqd)
>  		bool loop = false;
>  
>  		io_uring_drop_tctx_refs(current);
> -		/* read completions before cancelations */
> +		/* read completions before cancellations */

"cancelations" is not a typo.

"cancelations" and "cancellations" are both valid spellings. The former
is predominantly used in the US, while the latter is predominantly used
in the UK.

-- 
Ammar Faizi