Fix trivial typo in comment from 'oveflow' to 'overflow'.

Reported-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavoars@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Drew Fustini dfustini@baylibre.com --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c index aa76360d8f49..87e907add701 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c @@ -761,7 +761,7 @@ static void test_btf_dump_struct_data(struct btf *btf, struct btf_dump *d, /* overflow bpf_sock_ops struct with final element nonzero/zero. * Regardless of the value of the final field, we don't have all the * data we need to display it, so we should trigger an overflow. - * In other words oveflow checking should trump "is field zero?" + * In other words overflow checking should trump "is field zero?" * checks because if we've overflowed, it shouldn't matter what the * field is - we can't trust its value so shouldn't display it. */