| Message ID | 20210826031451.611-1-adrianhuang0701@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/1] exec: fix typo and grammar mistake in comment | expand |
On 8/25/21 8:14 PM, Adrian Huang wrote: > From: Adrian Huang <ahuang12@lenovo.com> > > 1. backwords -> backwards > 2. Remove 'and' 3. correct the possessive form of "process" > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Huang <ahuang12@lenovo.com> > --- > fs/exec.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c > index 38f63451b928..7178aee0d781 100644 > --- a/fs/exec.c > +++ b/fs/exec.c > @@ -533,7 +533,7 @@ static int copy_strings(int argc, struct user_arg_ptr argv, > if (!valid_arg_len(bprm, len)) > goto out; > > - /* We're going to work our way backwords. */ That could just be a pun. Maybe Al knows... > + /* We're going to work our way backwards. */ > pos = bprm->p; > str += len; > bprm->p -= len; > @@ -600,7 +600,7 @@ static int copy_strings(int argc, struct user_arg_ptr argv, > } > > /* > - * Copy and argument/environment string from the kernel to the processes stack. > + * Copy argument/environment strings from the kernel to the processe's stack. Either process's stack or process' stack. Not what is typed there. I prefer process's, just as this reference does: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/process-or-processs.1704502/ > */ > int copy_string_kernel(const char *arg, struct linux_binprm *bprm) > { >
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:27 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote: > > On 8/25/21 8:14 PM, Adrian Huang wrote: > > From: Adrian Huang <ahuang12@lenovo.com> > > > > 1. backwords -> backwards > > 2. Remove 'and' > > 3. correct the possessive form of "process" > > > > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Huang <ahuang12@lenovo.com> > > --- > > fs/exec.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c > > index 38f63451b928..7178aee0d781 100644 > > --- a/fs/exec.c > > +++ b/fs/exec.c > > @@ -533,7 +533,7 @@ static int copy_strings(int argc, struct user_arg_ptr argv, > > if (!valid_arg_len(bprm, len)) > > goto out; > > > > - /* We're going to work our way backwords. */ > > That could just be a pun. Maybe Al knows... Another comment in line 615 has the same sentence with 'backwards'. (https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/exec.c#L615). So, one of them should be corrected. > > > + /* We're going to work our way backwards. */ > > pos = bprm->p; > > str += len; > > bprm->p -= len; > > @@ -600,7 +600,7 @@ static int copy_strings(int argc, struct user_arg_ptr argv, > > } > > > > /* > > - * Copy and argument/environment string from the kernel to the processes stack. > > + * Copy argument/environment strings from the kernel to the processe's stack. > > Either process's stack or process' stack. Not what is typed there. > I prefer process's, just as this reference does: > https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/process-or-processs.1704502/ Oh, my bad. I should have deleted the letter 'e'. Thanks for this. After Al confirms 'backwords', I'll also change "processes's" to "process's" in v2. (https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/exec.c#L507) > > */ > > int copy_string_kernel(const char *arg, struct linux_binprm *bprm) > > { > > > > > -- > ~Randy >
On 8/25/21 10:25 PM, Huang Adrian wrote: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:27 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote: >> >> On 8/25/21 8:14 PM, Adrian Huang wrote: >>> From: Adrian Huang <ahuang12@lenovo.com> >>> >>> 1. backwords -> backwards >>> 2. Remove 'and' >> >> 3. correct the possessive form of "process" >> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Huang <ahuang12@lenovo.com> >>> --- >>> fs/exec.c | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c >>> index 38f63451b928..7178aee0d781 100644 >>> --- a/fs/exec.c >>> +++ b/fs/exec.c >>> @@ -533,7 +533,7 @@ static int copy_strings(int argc, struct user_arg_ptr argv, >>> if (!valid_arg_len(bprm, len)) >>> goto out; >>> >>> - /* We're going to work our way backwords. */ >> >> That could just be a pun. Maybe Al knows... > > Another comment in line 615 has the same sentence with 'backwards'. > (https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/exec.c#L615). > > So, one of them should be corrected. OK. >> >>> + /* We're going to work our way backwards. */ >>> pos = bprm->p; >>> str += len; >>> bprm->p -= len; >>> @@ -600,7 +600,7 @@ static int copy_strings(int argc, struct user_arg_ptr argv, >>> } >>> >>> /* >>> - * Copy and argument/environment string from the kernel to the processes stack. >>> + * Copy argument/environment strings from the kernel to the processe's stack. I think this one should be: * Copy an argument/environment string from the kernel to the process's stack. >> Either process's stack or process' stack. Not what is typed there. >> I prefer process's, just as this reference does: >> https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/process-or-processs.1704502/ > > Oh, my bad. I should have deleted the letter 'e'. Thanks for this. > > After Al confirms 'backwords', I'll also change "processes's" to > "process's" in v2. > (https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/exec.c#L507) > >>> */ >>> int copy_string_kernel(const char *arg, struct linux_binprm *bprm) >>> {
diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c index 38f63451b928..7178aee0d781 100644 --- a/fs/exec.c +++ b/fs/exec.c @@ -533,7 +533,7 @@ static int copy_strings(int argc, struct user_arg_ptr argv, if (!valid_arg_len(bprm, len)) goto out; - /* We're going to work our way backwords. */ + /* We're going to work our way backwards. */ pos = bprm->p; str += len; bprm->p -= len; @@ -600,7 +600,7 @@ static int copy_strings(int argc, struct user_arg_ptr argv, } /* - * Copy and argument/environment string from the kernel to the processes stack. + * Copy argument/environment strings from the kernel to the processe's stack. */ int copy_string_kernel(const char *arg, struct linux_binprm *bprm) {