mirror of
https://mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn/git/linux.git
synced 2024-11-23 12:14:10 +08:00
wifi: cfg80211: wext: Update spelling and grammar
Correct spelling in iw_handler.h. As reported by codespell. Also, while the "few shortcomings" line is being updated, correct its grammar. Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20240903-wifi-spell-v2-1-bfcf7062face@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
2036171288
commit
2c9ffe872e
@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
|
||||
* to handle wireless statistics.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* The initial APIs served us well and has proven a reasonably good design.
|
||||
* However, there is a few shortcommings :
|
||||
* However, there are a few shortcomings :
|
||||
* o No events, everything is a request to the driver.
|
||||
* o Large ioctl function in driver with gigantic switch statement
|
||||
* (i.e. spaghetti code).
|
||||
@ -38,13 +38,13 @@
|
||||
* -------------------------------
|
||||
* The new driver API is just a bunch of standard functions (handlers),
|
||||
* each handling a specific Wireless Extension. The driver just export
|
||||
* the list of handler it supports, and those will be called apropriately.
|
||||
* the list of handler it supports, and those will be called appropriately.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* I tried to keep the main advantage of the previous API (simplicity,
|
||||
* efficiency and light weight), and also I provide a good dose of backward
|
||||
* compatibility (most structures are the same, driver can use both API
|
||||
* simultaneously, ...).
|
||||
* Hopefully, I've also addressed the shortcomming of the initial API.
|
||||
* Hopefully, I've also addressed the shortcoming of the initial API.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* The advantage of the new API are :
|
||||
* o Handling of Extensions in driver broken in small contained functions
|
||||
@ -84,7 +84,7 @@
|
||||
|
||||
/* ---------------------- THE IMPLEMENTATION ---------------------- */
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Some of the choice I've made are pretty controversials. Defining an
|
||||
* Some of the choice I've made are pretty controversial. Defining an
|
||||
* API is very much weighting compromises. This goes into some of the
|
||||
* details and the thinking behind the implementation.
|
||||
*
|
||||
@ -140,7 +140,7 @@
|
||||
* example to distinguish setting max rate and basic rate), I would
|
||||
* break the prototype. Using iwreq_data is more flexible.
|
||||
* 3) Also, the above form is not generic (see above).
|
||||
* 4) I don't expect driver developper using the wrong field of the
|
||||
* 4) I don't expect driver developer using the wrong field of the
|
||||
* union (Doh !), so static typechecking doesn't add much value.
|
||||
* 5) Lastly, you can skip the union by doing :
|
||||
* static int mydriver_ioctl_setrate(struct net_device *dev,
|
||||
@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ int iw_handler_get_thrspy(struct net_device *dev, struct iw_request_info *info,
|
||||
void wireless_spy_update(struct net_device *dev, unsigned char *address,
|
||||
struct iw_quality *wstats);
|
||||
|
||||
/************************* INLINE FUNTIONS *************************/
|
||||
/************************* INLINE FUNCTIONS *************************/
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Function that are so simple that it's more efficient inlining them
|
||||
*/
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user