linux-kernel - [PATCH] docs: process: submitting-patches: fix typo in section "Respond to review comments"

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 12 Mar 2023 15:14:23 +0800
From:   Xujun Leng <lengxujun2007@....com>
To:     corbet@....net
Cc:     linux@...mhuis.info, lengxujun2007@....com,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] docs: process: submitting-patches: fix typo in section "Respond to review comments"

In the second paragraph of section "Respond to review comments", there is
a spelling mistake: "aganst" should be "against".

Signed-off-by: Xujun Leng <lengxujun2007@....com>
---
 Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
index eac7167dce83..69ce64e03c70 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ for their time.  Code review is a tiring and time-consuming process, and
 reviewers sometimes get grumpy.  Even in that case, though, respond
 politely and address the problems they have pointed out.  When sending a next
 version, add a ``patch changelog`` to the cover letter or to individual patches
-explaining difference aganst previous submission (see
+explaining difference against previous submission (see
 :ref:`the_canonical_patch_format`).
 
 See Documentation/process/email-clients.rst for recommendations on email
-- 
2.25.1