Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:05:45 +0200 | From | Paolo Ornati <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove duplicate cleanups |
| |
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:39:11 +0100 Alistair John Strachan <s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Thursday 29 June 2006 13:12, Paolo Ornati wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:02:18 +0200 > > > > jensmh@gmx.de wrote: > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/block/as-iosched.txt > > > > b/Documentation/block/as-iosched.txt index 6f47332..ed24cdd 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/block/as-iosched.txt > > > > +++ b/Documentation/block/as-iosched.txt > > > > @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ or if the next request in the queue is " > > > > just completed request, it is dispatched immediately. Otherwise, > > > > statistics (average think time, average seek distance) on the process > > > > that submitted the just completed request are examined. If it seems > > > > -likely that that process will submit another request soon, and that > > > > > > old version is correct, I think. > > > > me too (I've exagerated a bit in killing duplicates ;) > > "that the process"
Are you sure? To me it makes more sense the old one when read in the context.
> > > > > +likely that process will submit another request soon, and that > > > > request is likely to be near the just completed request, then the IO > > > > scheduler will stop dispatching more read requests for up time > > > > (antic_expire) milliseconds, hoping that process will submit a new > > > > request near the one > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/exception.txt b/Documentation/exception.txt > > > > index 3cb39ad..75aaa6e 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/exception.txt > > > > +++ b/Documentation/exception.txt > > > > @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ int verify_area(int type, const void * a > > > > function (which has since been replaced by access_ok()). > > > > > > > > This function verified that the memory area starting at address > > > > -addr and of size size was accessible for the operation specified > > > > > > maybe old version is correct. > > > > yes > > Agreed, but no harm in single quotes around 'addr' and 'size'.
I agree.
> > > > > +addr and of size was accessible for the operation specified > > > > in type (read or write). To do this, verify_read had to look up the > > > > virtual memory area (vma) that contained the address addr. In the > > > > normal case (correctly working program), this test was successful. > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/fb/fbcon.txt b/Documentation/fb/fbcon.txt > > > > index f373df1..4a9739a 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/fb/fbcon.txt > > > > +++ b/Documentation/fb/fbcon.txt > > > > @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ C. Boot options > > > > > > > > C. Attaching, Detaching and Unloading > > > > > > > > -Before going on on how to attach, detach and unload the framebuffer > > > > console, an > > > > > > not sure here, I'm not a native english speaker. > > > > yes, the old one looks correct > > I disagree. The cleanup's either an improvement, or the sentence should be > rewritten, "Before continuing with how to attach, detect and unload the > framebuffer.." > > I think if you're going to improve the quality of documentation, there's no > harm to make minor grammatical improvements. Duplicate words are almost > always a bad thing, and they really disrupt reading flow.
Maybe, but I'll probably make more danger than anything.
For now I just want to eliminate the wrong duplicates and keep the correct ones.
-- Paolo Ornati Linux 2.6.17.1 on x86_64 - 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/
| |