[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220720081746.1187382-6-steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:17:46 +0200
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5/5] xfrm: improve wording of comment above XFRM_OFFLOAD flags
From: Petr Vaněk <arkamar@...as.cz>
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>
Signed-off-by: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
---
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 3ed61df9cc91..7929bf9cbee4 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.
*/
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists