On Mon, Jun 13, 2022, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 12:01 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Add an apostrophe in a comment about it being the caller's, not callers,
> > responsibility to free an object.
> >
> > Reported-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Fixes: 768e9a61856b ("KVM: selftests: Purge vm+vcpu_id == vcpu silliness")
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c
> > index 39f2f5f1338f..0c550fb0dab2 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c
> > @@ -1434,7 +1434,7 @@ void vcpu_run_complete_io(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > /*
> > * Get the list of guest registers which are supported for
> > * KVM_GET_ONE_REG/KVM_SET_ONE_REG ioctls. Returns a kvm_reg_list pointer,
> > - * it is the callers responsibility to free the list.
> > + * it is the caller's responsibility to free the list.
> > */
> Shouldn't that be callers'? Or are you assuming there is only ever
> going to be one caller?
No? Regardless of the number of users of the function, for any given invocation
and allocation, there is exactly one caller.
