linux-kernel - [PATCH] Trivial numbering change in comments.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 28 Aug 2018 16:08:18 -0400
From:   Ray Clinton <mr.ray.clinton@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
        Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>,
        Alistair Strachan <astrachan@...gle.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     trivial@...nel.org
Subject: [PATCH] Trivial numbering change in comments.

I'm trying to get my feet wet in kernel dev and while working on a patch
I noticed in a lengthy comment block that the number "2" was skipped
in a description of the steps of a protocol. This patch is simply correcting
this. This is for 4.18.0.

It is a very trivial patch, but this is my first actual try at one and
thought I
might start out small (and I don't think you can get smaller than a single
 character change). Any and all advice (about this patch, email, or
anything else) is very welcome.

Thanks so much!
Ray

Signed-off-by: Ray Clinton <mr.ray.clinton@...il.com>
---
 drivers/staging/android/uapi/vsoc_shm.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/uapi/vsoc_shm.h
b/drivers/staging/android/uapi/vsoc_shm.h
index 6291fb2..0301172 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/android/uapi/vsoc_shm.h
+++ b/drivers/staging/android/uapi/vsoc_shm.h
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ struct fd_scoped_permission_arg {
  *    The transmitter can choose any appropriate hashing algorithm, including
  *    hash = futex_offset & ((1 << num_nodes_lg2) - 1)
  *
- * 3. The transmitter should atomically compare and swap futex_offset with 0
+ * 2. The transmitter should atomically compare and swap futex_offset with 0
  *    at hash. There are 3 possible outcomes
  *      a. The swap fails because the futex_offset is already in the table.
  *         The transmitter should stop.
-- 
2.7.4