6.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Gianmarco Lusvardi <glusvardi@xxxxxxxxxx>
[ Upstream commit e37243b65d528a8a9f8b9a57a43885f8e8dfc15c ]
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.
Fixes: 56a092c89505 ("bpf: add script and prepare bpf.h for new helpers documentation")
Signed-off-by: Gianmarco Lusvardi <glusvardi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240213230544.930018-3-glusvardi@xxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@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 61b7dddedc461..0669bac5e900e 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
--
2.43.0
