From 0d4fb8439092ff8253af72ac6bc193e77ebbcf2f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: FdaSilvaYY Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 15:23:54 -0500 Subject: GH601: Various spelling fixes. Signed-off-by: Rich Salz Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell --- crypto/whrlpool/wp_block.c | 2 +- crypto/whrlpool/wp_dgst.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'crypto/whrlpool') diff --git a/crypto/whrlpool/wp_block.c b/crypto/whrlpool/wp_block.c index 7e4938331c..dc652e87fe 100644 --- a/crypto/whrlpool/wp_block.c +++ b/crypto/whrlpool/wp_block.c @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ typedef unsigned long long u64; * one quadword load. One can argue that that many single-byte loads * is too excessive, as one could load a quadword and "milk" it for * eight 8-bit values instead. Well, yes, but in order to do so *and* - * avoid excessive loads you have to accomodate a handful of 64-bit + * avoid excessive loads you have to accommodate a handful of 64-bit * values in the register bank and issue a bunch of shifts and mask. * It's a tradeoff: loads vs. shift and mask in big register bank[!]. * On most CPUs eight single-byte loads are faster and I let other diff --git a/crypto/whrlpool/wp_dgst.c b/crypto/whrlpool/wp_dgst.c index bb99799a71..eeb420c02f 100644 --- a/crypto/whrlpool/wp_dgst.c +++ b/crypto/whrlpool/wp_dgst.c @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ * * Unlike authors' reference implementation, block processing * routine whirlpool_block is designed to operate on multi-block - * input. This is done for perfomance. + * input. This is done for performance. */ #include "wp_locl.h" -- cgit v1.2.3