+ selftests-memfd-fix-spelling-mistakes.patch added to mm-unstable branch

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

The patch titled
     Subject: selftests/memfd: fix spelling mistakes
has been added to the -mm mm-unstable branch.  Its filename is
     selftests-memfd-fix-spelling-mistakes.patch

This patch will shortly appear at
     https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/patches/selftests-memfd-fix-spelling-mistakes.patch

This patch will later appear in the mm-unstable branch at
    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm

Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
   a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
   b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
   c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
      reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's

*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***

The -mm tree is included into linux-next via the mm-everything
branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
and is updated there every 2-3 working days

------------------------------------------------------
From: Saurav Shah <sauravshah.31@gmail.com>
Subject: selftests/memfd: fix spelling mistakes
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 04:43:17 +0530

Fix spelling mistakes in the comments.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240501231317.24648-1-sauravshah.31@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Saurav Shah <sauravshah.31@gmail.com>
Cc: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
Cc: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Cc: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---

 tools/testing/selftests/memfd/fuse_test.c  |    2 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/fuse_test.c~selftests-memfd-fix-spelling-mistakes
+++ a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/fuse_test.c
@@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 	 * then the kernel did a page-replacement or canceled the read() (or
 	 * whatever magic it did..). In that case, the memfd object is still
 	 * all zero.
-	 * In case the memfd-object was *not* sealed, the read() was successfull
+	 * In case the memfd-object was *not* sealed, the read() was successful
 	 * and the memfd object must *not* be all zero.
 	 * Note that in real scenarios, there might be a mixture of both, but
 	 * in this test-cases, we have explicit 200ms delays which should be
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c~selftests-memfd-fix-spelling-mistakes
+++ a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
@@ -1528,7 +1528,7 @@ static void test_share_open(char *banner
 
 /*
  * Test sharing via fork()
- * Test whether seal-modifications work as expected with forked childs.
+ * Test whether seal-modifications work as expected with forked children.
  */
 static void test_share_fork(char *banner, char *b_suffix)
 {
_

Patches currently in -mm which might be from sauravshah.31@gmail.com are

selftests-memfd-fix-spelling-mistakes.patch