[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f8b10ee7-026c-1dc0-fb0c-2a887cd1e953@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 11:00:10 -0500
From: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
To: Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@...il.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
jikos@...nel.org, mbenes@...e.cz, pmladek@...e.com, corbet@....net,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rdunlap@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] docs: livepatch: Fix a typo and remove the unnecessary
gaps in a sentence
On 3/5/21 8:37 AM, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:
> On 12:56 Fri 05 Mar 2021, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 03:39:23PM +0530, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:
>>> s/varibles/variables/
>>>
>>> ...and remove leading spaces from a sentence.
>>
>> What do you mean 'leading spaces'? Separating two sentences with
>> one space or two is a matter of personal style, and we do not attempt
>> to enforce a particular style in the kernel.
>>
> The spaces before the "In" .. nor I am imposing anything , it was peter caught
> and told me that it is hanging ..move it to the next line ..so I did. ..
>
Initially I thought the same as Matthew, but after inspecting the diff I
realized it was just a line wrap. Looks fine to me.
>>> Sometimes it may not be convenient or possible to allocate shadow
>>> variables alongside their parent objects. Or a livepatch fix may
>>> -require shadow varibles to only a subset of parent object instances. In
>>> +require shadow variables to only a subset of parent object instances.
>>
>> wrong preposition, s/to/for/ ..where???
Hi Bhaskar,
Thanks for spotting, I'd be happy with v2 as is or a v3 if you want to
update s/shadow variables to only/shadow variables for only/ but
knowing me, I probably repeated the same phrasing elsewhere. Up to you,
thanks.
Acked-by: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
-- Joe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists