redonkable/remarkable-linux
redonkable/remarkable-linux
1
0
Fork 0
Code Releases Activity

UBIFS: correct spelling of "thrice".

Browse source 
Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <ext-adrian.hunter@nokia.com>
This commit is contained in:
Adrian Hunter 2008-07-30 12:18:02 +03:00 committed by Artem Bityutskiy
parent 22bc7fa8c5
commit 3a13252c6f
2 changed files with 3 additions and 3 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
fs/ubifs/budget.c
View file

@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ int ubifs_calc_min_idx_lebs(struct ubifs_info *c)
idx_size = c->old_idx_sz + c->budg_idx_growth + c->budg_uncommitted_idx;
/* And make sure we have trice the index size of space reserved */
/* And make sure we have thrice the index size of space reserved */
idx_size = idx_size + (idx_size << 1);
/*
@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ static int can_use_rp(struct ubifs_info *c)
* This function makes sure UBIFS has enough free eraseblocks for index growth
* and data.
*
* When budgeting index space, UBIFS reserves trice as more LEBs as the index
* When budgeting index space, UBIFS reserves thrice as many LEBs as the index
* would take if it was consolidated and written to the flash. This guarantees
* that the "in-the-gaps" commit method always succeeds and UBIFS will always
* be able to commit dirty index. So this function basically adds amount of

2
fs/ubifs/find.c
View file

@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ int ubifs_find_dirty_leb(struct ubifs_info *c, struct ubifs_lprops *ret_lp,
idx_lp = idx_heap->arr[0];
sum = idx_lp->free + idx_lp->dirty;
/*
* Since we reserve trice as more space for the index than it
* Since we reserve thrice as much space for the index than it
* actually takes, it does not make sense to pick indexing LEBs
* with less than, say, half LEB of dirty space. May be half is
* not the optimal boundary - this should be tested and