linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs: Fix typos in Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 1 Jun 2021 22:25:27 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Haocheng Xie <xiehaocheng.cn@...il.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: Fix typos in Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst

On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 16:53:37 -0600
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:

> Haocheng Xie <xiehaocheng.cn@...il.com> writes:
> 
> > Fix the usage of "a/the" and improve the readability.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Haocheng Xie <xiehaocheng.cn@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst b/Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst
> > index 62c98e9..11cc1c2 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst
> > @@ -354,8 +354,8 @@ of ftrace. Here is a list of some of the key files:
> >  	is being directly called by the function. If the count is greater
> >  	than 1 it most likely will be ftrace_ops_list_func().
> >  
> > -	If the callback of the function jumps to a trampoline that is
> > -	specific to a the callback and not the standard trampoline,
> > +	If the callback of a function jumps to a trampoline which is
> > +	specific to the callback and which is not the standard trampoline,  
> 
> The "that" in the first line was actually correct and best left
> unchanged.  I've applied the patch, but took the liberty of putting
> "that" back.

Right. And if it is modifying the "the" here, it should be modifying
the "the function" in the previous paragraph as well.

-- Steve