Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] More spelling fixes: loose->lose | From | Steven Cole <> | Date | 01 Mar 2003 21:47:50 -0700 |
| |
On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 20:11, jw schultz wrote: > On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 08:28:07PM +0000, Hugo Mills wrote: > > Loose, pronounced with a soft "s", as in the word "spelling", means > > badly-fitting or vague. > > Actually it means "not tight" or unconstrained as in "loosen > the collar and check airflow before performing > mouth-to-mouth" or "let loose the dogs" > > In actual usage loose and lose can be antonyms when > referring to priveleges. "loose privs" vs "lose privs". > > I found at least one case of correction that looked wrong so > i perused the lot, see comments. > > > diff -ur linux-2.5.63-orig/arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c linux-2.5.63/arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c > > --- linux-2.5.63-orig/arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c 2003-03-01 16:19:41.000000000 +0000 > > +++ linux-2.5.63/arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c 2003-03-01 19:55:03.000000000 +0000 > > @@ -2995,7 +2995,7 @@ > > * interruptible). In this case, the PMU will be kept frozen and the process will > > * run to completion without monitoring enabled. > > * > > - * Of course, we cannot loose notify process when self-monitoring. > > + * Of course, we cannot lose notify process when self-monitoring. > > This might have been "loosely notify" but careful examination of the > context idicates it should be "lose notification process" or > "lose the notify process".
In my patch to Linus five days ago which fixed most of the lose/loose substitutions, I left this one in, guessing that it might mean "let loose 'notify process'". I was wrong, so that error remains in the tree. Reference changeset currently numbered 1.1035. Good catch.
Steven
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |