From 41d0c4677feee1ea063e0f2c2af72dc953b1f1cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yusheng Zheng Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 22:59:52 +0000 Subject: libbpf: Fix some typos in comments Fix some spelling errors in the code comments of libbpf: betwen -> between paremeters -> parameters knowning -> knowing definiton -> definition compatiblity -> compatibility overriden -> overridden occured -> occurred proccess -> process managment -> management nessary -> necessary Signed-off-by: Yusheng Zheng Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240909225952.30324-1-yunwei356@gmail.com --- tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h') diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h index 305c62817dd3..80bc0242e8dc 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h @@ -341,7 +341,7 @@ extern void bpf_iter_num_destroy(struct bpf_iter_num *it) __weak __ksym; * I.e., it looks almost like high-level for each loop in other languages, * supports continue/break, and is verifiable by BPF verifier. * - * For iterating integers, the difference betwen bpf_for_each(num, i, N, M) + * For iterating integers, the difference between bpf_for_each(num, i, N, M) * and bpf_for(i, N, M) is in that bpf_for() provides additional proof to * verifier that i is in [N, M) range, and in bpf_for_each() case i is `int * *`, not just `int`. So for integers bpf_for() is more convenient. -- cgit