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;
From:   =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20Van=C4=9Bk?= <arkamar@atlas.cz>
To:     Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20Van=C4=9Bk?= <arkamar@atlas.cz>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] xfrm: improve wording of comment above XFRM_OFFLOAD flags
Date:   Thu, 30 Jun 2022 16:27:20 +0200
Message-Id: <20220630142720.19137-1-arkamar@atlas.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

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@atlas.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