linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND. PATCH v3] platform/x86/intel/pmt: Correct the typo 'ACCCESS

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: <59a4f18b-0d8d-4429-a353-0f0a8a38fc68@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2024 12:12:01 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: WangYuli <wangyuli@...ontech.com>, david.e.box@...ux.intel.com,
 ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com
Cc: platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 tzimmermann@...e.de, lee.jones@...aro.org, lee@...nel.org,
 guanwentao@...ontech.com, zhanjun@...ontech.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND. PATCH v3] platform/x86/intel/pmt: Correct the typo
 'ACCCESS_LOCAL'

Hi WangYuli,

On 29-Sep-24 11:23 AM, WangYuli wrote:
> There is a spelling mistake of 'ACCCESS_LOCAL' which should be
> 'ACCESS_LOCAL'.
> 
> Cc: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>
> Signed-off-by: WangYuli <wangyuli@...ontech.com>

You send your v3 patch just add the start of the 6.12 merge window,
so nothing will happen until 6.12-rc1 is out (sometime today).

As such there is no need for this resend.

Next time please wait a bit longer before posting a resend,
especially during the merge window.

Regards,

Hans

> ---
>  drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmt/class.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmt/class.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmt/class.c
> index c04bb7f97a4d..7680474c4f96 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmt/class.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmt/class.c
> @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static int intel_pmt_populate_entry(struct intel_pmt_entry *entry,
>  		/*
>  		 * Some hardware use a different calculation for the base address
>  		 * when access_type == ACCESS_LOCAL. On the these systems
> -		 * ACCCESS_LOCAL refers to an address in the same BAR as the
> +		 * ACCESS_LOCAL refers to an address in the same BAR as the
>  		 * header but at a fixed offset. But as the header address was
>  		 * supplied to the driver, we don't know which BAR it was in.
>  		 * So search for the bar whose range includes the header address.