linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: Fix missing 'bit' in comment

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <dfd44b01-3d90-3923-2971-d8d5bce5db08@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:45:13 +0100
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Chucheng Luo <luochucheng@...o.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     wenhu.wang@...o.com, trivial@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Fix missing 'bit' in comment

Hi,

On 3/13/20 2:46 AM, Chucheng Luo wrote:
> The missing word may make it hard for other developers to
> understand it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chucheng Luo <luochucheng@...o.com>

This new version also looks good to me:

Acked-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>

Regards,

Hans

p.s.

In the future please mark new versions as such by using e.g.:

git send-email --subject-prefix="PATCH v2" ...

Actually, it would be good to resend this patch (with my
Acked-by added to the commit msg) this way because now there
is no way for the fs maintainers to figure out which one
of the 2 patches you've send out to apply.



> ---
>   fs/vboxsf/dir.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/vboxsf/dir.c b/fs/vboxsf/dir.c
> index dd147b490982..4d569f14a8d8 100644
> --- a/fs/vboxsf/dir.c
> +++ b/fs/vboxsf/dir.c
> @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ static bool vboxsf_dir_emit(struct file *dir, struct dir_context *ctx)
>   		d_type = vboxsf_get_d_type(info->info.attr.mode);
>   
>   		/*
> -		 * On 32 bit systems pos is 64 signed, while ino is 32 bit
> +		 * On 32-bit systems pos is 64-bit signed, while ino is 32-bit
>   		 * unsigned so fake_ino may overflow, check for this.
>   		 */
>   		if ((ino_t)(ctx->pos + 1) != (u64)(ctx->pos + 1)) {
>