linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: selftests: Add a missing apostrophe in comment to show ownership

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: <YqeQx2fbdVVnRcxS@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jun 2022 19:32:23 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: selftests: Add a missing apostrophe in comment
 to show ownership

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 12:01 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add an apostrophe in a comment about it being the caller's, not callers,
> > responsibility to free an object.
> >
> > Reported-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
> > Fixes: 768e9a61856b ("KVM: selftests: Purge vm+vcpu_id == vcpu silliness")
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c
> > index 39f2f5f1338f..0c550fb0dab2 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c
> > @@ -1434,7 +1434,7 @@ void vcpu_run_complete_io(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >  /*
> >   * Get the list of guest registers which are supported for
> >   * KVM_GET_ONE_REG/KVM_SET_ONE_REG ioctls.  Returns a kvm_reg_list pointer,
> > - * it is the callers responsibility to free the list.
> > + * it is the caller's responsibility to free the list.
> >   */
> Shouldn't that be callers'? Or are you assuming there is only ever
> going to be one caller?

No?  Regardless of the number of users of the function, for any given invocation
and allocation, there is exactly one caller.