Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 13 Jun 2022 19:32:23 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: selftests: Add a missing apostrophe in comment
 to show ownership
Message-ID: <YqeQx2fbdVVnRcxS@google.com>
References: <20220613161942.1586791-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20220613161942.1586791-2-seanjc@google.com>
 <CALMp9eRBNqPrBMi_XDMMK8HpdoYRUfoe_jSVZAW80wSxWbDJVA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALMp9eRBNqPrBMi_XDMMK8HpdoYRUfoe_jSVZAW80wSxWbDJVA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 12:01 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add an apostrophe in a comment about it being the caller's, not callers,
> > responsibility to free an object.
> >
> > Reported-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
> > Fixes: 768e9a61856b ("KVM: selftests: Purge vm+vcpu_id == vcpu silliness")
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c
> > index 39f2f5f1338f..0c550fb0dab2 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c
> > @@ -1434,7 +1434,7 @@ void vcpu_run_complete_io(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >  /*
> >   * Get the list of guest registers which are supported for
> >   * KVM_GET_ONE_REG/KVM_SET_ONE_REG ioctls.  Returns a kvm_reg_list pointer,
> > - * it is the callers responsibility to free the list.
> > + * it is the caller's responsibility to free the list.
> >   */
> Shouldn't that be callers'? Or are you assuming there is only ever
> going to be one caller?

No?  Regardless of the number of users of the function, for any given invocation
and allocation, there is exactly one caller.