From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B8B0C433EF for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 08:10:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229700AbiGKIKX (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2022 04:10:23 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47536 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229450AbiGKIKV (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2022 04:10:21 -0400 Received: from a.mx.secunet.com (a.mx.secunet.com [62.96.220.36]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D27F1BEB6; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 01:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a.mx.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89C1201E5; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 10:10:19 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by secunet Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (a.mx.secunet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EWYLcTSgrQeG; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 10:10:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mailout1.secunet.com (mailout1.secunet.com [62.96.220.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a.mx.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B839201A1; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 10:10:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from cas-essen-01.secunet.de (unknown [10.53.40.201]) by mailout1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2036E80004A; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 10:10:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mbx-dresden-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.199) by cas-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 10:10:07 +0200 Received: from gauss2.secunet.de (10.182.7.193) by mbx-dresden-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.199) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 10:10:07 +0200 Received: by gauss2.secunet.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D6E3F3182E41; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 10:10:06 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 10:10:06 +0200 From: Steffen Klassert To: Petr =?utf-8?B?VmFuxJtr?= CC: Herbert Xu , "David S . Miller" , , , Leon Romanovsky Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: improve wording of comment above XFRM_OFFLOAD flags Message-ID: <20220711081006.GL566407@gauss3.secunet.de> References: <20220630142720.19137-1-arkamar@atlas.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20220630142720.19137-1-arkamar@atlas.cz> X-ClientProxiedBy: cas-essen-02.secunet.de (10.53.40.202) To mbx-dresden-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.199) X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: 2c86f778-e09b-4440-8b15-867914633a10 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 04:27:20PM +0200, Petr Vaněk wrote: > I have noticed a few minor wording issues in a comment recently added > above XFRM_OFFLOAD flags in 7c76ecd9c99b ("xfrm: enforce validity of > offload input flags"). > > Signed-off-by: Petr Vaněk Applied to ipsec-next, thanks!