At 2023-10-30 16:32:37, "Christian Brauner" <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 01:52:35AM +0000, gaoyusong wrote: >> From: Yusong Gao <a869920004@xxxxxxx> >> >> Fix typo in access_override_creds(), modify non-RCY to non-RCU. >> >> Signed-off-by: gaoyusong <a869920004@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> fs/open.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c >> index 98f6601fbac6..72eb20a8256a 100644 >> --- a/fs/open.c >> +++ b/fs/open.c >> @@ -442,7 +442,7 @@ static const struct cred *access_override_creds(void) >> * 'get_current_cred()' function), that will clear the >> * non_rcu field, because now that other user may be >> * expecting RCU freeing. But normal thread-synchronous >> - * cred accesses will keep things non-RCY. >> + * cred accesses will keep things non-RCU. > >I think this might have been intended as a joke aka "non-RCY" as in >"non-racy" here. I think best would be to change it to something like >"cred accesses will keep things non-racy and allows to avoid rcu freeing" >if you care enough. I see what you mean. Thanks for your reply. I don't think any more changes are needed when I figure out it.
