On 17/08/2022 19:46, Mykola Lysenko wrote:
Hi Colin, Thanks for your patch! Can you change patch title to "[PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Fix spelling mistake "succesful” (kfunc_call.c)”?
Personally I think the kfunc_call.c part in the title is extraneous, it's clear it's patching that file from the diff and it's not the style
I've used of the 3,900+ patches I've had accepted in the kernel. Colin
Regards, MykolaOn Aug 17, 2022, at 1:34 AM, Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: !-------------------------------------------------------------------| This Message Is From an External Sender |-------------------------------------------------------------------! There is a spelling mistake in an ASSERT_OK literal string. Fix it. Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@xxxxxxxxx> --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c index 351fafa006fb..eede7c304f86 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static void test_destructive(void) { __u64 save_caps = 0; - ASSERT_OK(test_destructive_open_and_load(), "succesful_load"); + ASSERT_OK(test_destructive_open_and_load(), "successful_load"); if (!ASSERT_OK(cap_disable_effective(1ULL << CAP_SYS_BOOT, &save_caps), "drop_caps")) return; -- 2.37.1
