On 11/8/20 7:41 PM, Souptick Joarder wrote:
On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 2:27 PM John Hubbard <jhubb...@nvidia.com> wrote:
On 11/7/20 12:24 AM, Souptick Joarder wrote:
Fixed typo s/Poiner/Pointer
Fixes: 5b636857fee6 ("TOMOYO: Allow using argv[]/envp[] of execve() as
conditions.")
Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.li...@gmail.com>
Cc: John Hubbard <jhubb...@nvidia.com>
---
security/tomoyo/domain.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/security/tomoyo/domain.c b/security/tomoyo/domain.c
index bd748be..7b2babe 100644
--- a/security/tomoyo/domain.c
+++ b/security/tomoyo/domain.c
@@ -891,7 +891,7 @@ int tomoyo_find_next_domain(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
*
* @bprm: Pointer to "struct linux_binprm".
* @pos: Location to dump.
- * @dump: Poiner to "struct tomoyo_page_dump".
+ * @dump: Pointer to "struct tomoyo_page_dump".
Not worth a separate patch, especially since the original comment is merely
copying the C sources, and as such, does not add any value.
I'd either a) craft a new documentation line that adds some value, or b) just
merge this patch into the previous one, and make a note in the commit
description to the effect that you've included a trivial typo fix as long
as you're there.
John, as patch[1/2] is dropped, can we take this patch forward with some more
updates in documentations ?
That's really up to the folks who work on this code. Personally I would rarely
post a patch *just* for this, but on the other hand it is a correction. Either
way is fine with me of course.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
