2024-02-13 23:07 UTC+0000 ~ Gianmarco Lusvardi <glusvardi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> The bpf_doc script refers to the GPL as the "GNU Privacy License".
> I strongly suspect that the author wanted to refer to the GNU General
> Public License, under which the Linux kernel is released, as, to the
> best of my knowledge, there is no license named "GNU Privacy License".
>
> This patch corrects the license name in the script accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gianmarco Lusvardi <glusvardi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> scripts/bpf_doc.py | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/bpf_doc.py b/scripts/bpf_doc.py
> index 61b7dddedc46..0669bac5e900 100755
> --- a/scripts/bpf_doc.py
> +++ b/scripts/bpf_doc.py
> @@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ eBPF programs can have an associated license, passed along with the bytecode
> instructions to the kernel when the programs are loaded. The format for that
> string is identical to the one in use for kernel modules (Dual licenses, such
> as "Dual BSD/GPL", may be used). Some helper functions are only accessible to
> -programs that are compatible with the GNU Privacy License (GPL).
> +programs that are compatible with the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL).
>
> In order to use such helpers, the eBPF program must be loaded with the correct
> license string passed (via **attr**) to the **bpf**\\ () system call, and this
Not sure how I came up with that one. Thanks for the fix!
Fixes: 56a092c89505 ("bpf: add script and prepare bpf.h for new helpers documentation")
Reviewed-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
