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]

Date:   Mon, 13 Jun 2022 12:35:43 -0700
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...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 at 12:32 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Statically, there may be multiple callers, and each is responsible for
freeing the list, right?