[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220630142720.19137-1-arkamar@atlas.cz>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 16:27:20 +0200
From: Petr Vaněk <arkamar@...as.cz>
To: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Petr Vaněk <arkamar@...as.cz>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] xfrm: improve wording of comment above XFRM_OFFLOAD flags
I have noticed a few minor wording issues in a comment recently added
above XFRM_OFFLOAD flags in 7c76ecd9c99b ("xfrm: enforce validity of
offload input flags").
Signed-off-by: Petr Vaněk <arkamar@...as.cz>
---
include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h b/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
index 65e13a099b1a..ee8862d4335e 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
@@ -511,9 +511,9 @@ struct xfrm_user_offload {
int ifindex;
__u8 flags;
};
-/* This flag was exposed without any kernel code that supporting it.
- * Unfortunately, strongswan has the code that uses sets this flag,
- * which makes impossible to reuse this bit.
+/* This flag was exposed without any kernel code that supports it.
+ * Unfortunately, strongswan has the code that sets this flag,
+ * which makes it impossible to reuse this bit.
*
* So leave it here to make sure that it won't be reused by mistake.
*/
--
2.35.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists