linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rt2x00: remove duplicate word 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <1ee1b354-0550-3fd8-f547-10827b3974ad@infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 16:33:37 -0800
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     wengjianfeng <samirweng1979@....com>
Cc:     stf_xl@...pl, helmut.schaa@...glemail.com, kvalo@...eaurora.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        wengjianfeng <wengjianfeng@...ong.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rt2x00: remove duplicate word in comment

On 2/3/21 4:30 PM, wengjianfeng wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 07:16:17 -0800
> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/2/21 10:38 PM, samirweng1979 wrote:
>>> From: wengjianfeng <wengjianfeng@...ong.com>
>>>
>>> remove duplicate word 'we' in comment
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: wengjianfeng <wengjianfeng@...ong.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2x00crypto.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2x00crypto.c
>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2x00crypto.c index
>>> c861811..7158152 100644 ---
>>> a/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2x00crypto.c +++
>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2x00crypto.c @@ -179,7
>>> +179,7 @@ void rt2x00crypto_rx_insert_iv(struct sk_buff *skb,
>>>  	 * Make room for new data. There are 2 possibilities
>>>  	 * either the alignment is already present between
>>>  	 * the 802.11 header and payload. In that case we
>>> -	 * we have to move the header less then the iv_len
>>> +	 * have to move the header less then the iv_len
>>
>> s/then/than/
>>
>>>  	 * since we can use the already available l2pad bytes
>>>  	 * for the iv data.
>>>  	 * When the alignment must be added manually we must
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> Hi Randy,
>    So you means add it for byte alignment, right? if yes,just ignore
>    the patch. thanks.

No, I mean that there is a typo there also: "then" should be changed to "than"
while you are making changes.

thanks.
-- 
~Randy