2022-06-30 14:49:02

by Petr Vaněk

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 <[email protected]>
---
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

2022-07-11 09:08:27

by Steffen Klassert

Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: improve wording of comment above XFRM_OFFLOAD flags

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 04:27:20PM +0200, Petr Vaněk wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]>

Applied to ipsec-next, thanks!