Source code comment spelling fix: explicitely -> explicitly

git-svn-id: http://svn.code.sf.net/p/scst/svn/trunk@5947 d57e44dd-8a1f-0410-8b47-8ef2f437770f
This commit is contained in:
Bart Van Assche
2014-12-22 12:32:30 +00:00
parent d8ec3a3873
commit 8446d801b6
4 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
+1 -1
View File
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ config SCSI_MULTI_LUN
mobile phone in mass storage mode. This option forces the kernel to
probe for all LUNs by default. This setting can be overriden by
max_luns boot/module parameter. Note that this option does not affect
devices conforming to SCSI-3 or higher as they can explicitely report
devices conforming to SCSI-3 or higher as they can explicitly report
their number of LUNs. It is safe to say Y here unless you have one of
those rare devices which reacts in an unexpected way when probed for
multiple LUNs.
+1 -1
View File
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ config SCSI_MULTI_LUN
mobile phone in mass storage mode. This option forces the kernel to
probe for all LUNs by default. This setting can be overriden by
max_luns boot/module parameter. Note that this option does not affect
devices conforming to SCSI-3 or higher as they can explicitely report
devices conforming to SCSI-3 or higher as they can explicitly report
their number of LUNs. It is safe to say Y here unless you have one of
those rare devices which reacts in an unexpected way when probed for
multiple LUNs.
+1 -1
View File
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ config SCSI_MULTI_LUN
mobile phone in mass storage mode. This option forces the kernel to
probe for all LUNs by default. This setting can be overriden by
max_luns boot/module parameter. Note that this option does not affect
devices conforming to SCSI-3 or higher as they can explicitely report
devices conforming to SCSI-3 or higher as they can explicitly report
their number of LUNs. It is safe to say Y here unless you have one of
those rare devices which reacts in an unexpected way when probed for
multiple LUNs.
+1 -1
View File
@@ -5297,7 +5297,7 @@ static void q2t_response_pkt(scsi_qla_host_t *ha, response_t *pkt)
* command was sent between the abort request
* was received and processed. Unfortunately,
* the firmware has a silly requirement that
* all aborted exchanges must be explicitely
* all aborted exchanges must be explicitly
* terminated, otherwise it refuses to send
* responses for the abort requests. So, we
* have to (re)terminate the exchange and