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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200718031921.GU12769@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Sat, 18 Jul 2020 04:19:21 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking: fcntl.h: drop duplicated word in a comment

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 07:54:13PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> +++ linux-next-20200714/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@
>   * record  locks, but are "owned" by the open file description, not the
>   * process. This means that they are inherited across fork() like BSD (flock)
>   * locks, and they are only released automatically when the last reference to
> - * the the open file against which they were acquired is put.
> + * the open file against which they were acquired is put.

This is the kind of sentence up with which I shall not put!

How about "This means that they are inherited across fork() like BSD
  (flock) locks, and they are automatically released when the last
  reference is released for the file they were acquired against.

Even that is a bit too convoluted for my tastes.  Better suggestions
welcome.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ