[Qemu-trivial] [PATCH] slirp: Fix spelling in comment (enought -> enough, insure -> ensure)

[Qemu-trivial] [PATCH] slirp: Fix spelling in comment (enought -> enough, insure -> ensure)

[Stefan Weil]

Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
---

As a non native speaker, I feel that 'ensure' is better here than 'insure'.
Could a native speaker please confirm that?

Thanks,

Stefan

 slirp/ip_icmp.h |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/slirp/ip_icmp.h b/slirp/ip_icmp.h
index 1a1af91..be4426b 100644
--- a/slirp/ip_icmp.h
+++ b/slirp/ip_icmp.h
@@ -92,8 +92,8 @@ struct icmp {
 
 /*
  * Lower bounds on packet lengths for various types.
- * For the error advice packets must first insure that the
- * packet is large enought to contain the returned ip header.
+ * For the error advice packets must first ensure that the
+ * packet is large enough to contain the returned ip header.
  * Only then can we do the check to see if 64 bits of packet
  * data have been returned, since we need to check the returned
  * ip header length.
-- 
1.7.10

[Qemu-devel] [PATCH] slirp: Fix spelling in comment (enought -> enough, insure -> ensure)

[Stefan Weil]

Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
---

As a non native speaker, I feel that 'ensure' is better here than 'insure'.
Could a native speaker please confirm that?

Thanks,

Stefan

 slirp/ip_icmp.h |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/slirp/ip_icmp.h b/slirp/ip_icmp.h
index 1a1af91..be4426b 100644
--- a/slirp/ip_icmp.h
+++ b/slirp/ip_icmp.h
@@ -92,8 +92,8 @@ struct icmp {
 
 /*
  * Lower bounds on packet lengths for various types.
- * For the error advice packets must first insure that the
- * packet is large enought to contain the returned ip header.
+ * For the error advice packets must first ensure that the
+ * packet is large enough to contain the returned ip header.
  * Only then can we do the check to see if 64 bits of packet
  * data have been returned, since we need to check the returned
  * ip header length.
-- 
1.7.10

Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] slirp: Fix spelling in comment (enought -> enough, insure -> ensure)

[Peter Maydell]

On 27 September 2012 19:57, Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
> ---
>
> As a non native speaker, I feel that 'ensure' is better here than 'insure'.
> Could a native speaker please confirm that?

I would tend to agree, but I have a feeling this insure/ensure
distinction is more strongly held in British English than
US English...

>  /*
>   * Lower bounds on packet lengths for various types.
> - * For the error advice packets must first insure that the
> - * packet is large enought to contain the returned ip header.
> + * For the error advice packets must first ensure that the
> + * packet is large enough to contain the returned ip header.
>   * Only then can we do the check to see if 64 bits of packet
>   * data have been returned, since we need to check the returned
>   * ip header length.
> --

...however I think the more serious issue with this sentence is
not the spelling but that I really have very little idea
what it is trying to say. Is it "[error advice] packets" or
"error [advice packets]", or "For the error, [advice packets]"
or "For the [error advice], packets" ? And a packet can't
ensure anything anyway, so who is actually ensuring this
(and what happens if they don't do it)?

-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] slirp: Fix spelling in comment (enought -> enough, insure -> ensure)

[Peter Maydell]

On 27 September 2012 19:57, Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
> ---
>
> As a non native speaker, I feel that 'ensure' is better here than 'insure'.
> Could a native speaker please confirm that?

I would tend to agree, but I have a feeling this insure/ensure
distinction is more strongly held in British English than
US English...

>  /*
>   * Lower bounds on packet lengths for various types.
> - * For the error advice packets must first insure that the
> - * packet is large enought to contain the returned ip header.
> + * For the error advice packets must first ensure that the
> + * packet is large enough to contain the returned ip header.
>   * Only then can we do the check to see if 64 bits of packet
>   * data have been returned, since we need to check the returned
>   * ip header length.
> --

...however I think the more serious issue with this sentence is
not the spelling but that I really have very little idea
what it is trying to say. Is it "[error advice] packets" or
"error [advice packets]", or "For the error, [advice packets]"
or "For the [error advice], packets" ? And a packet can't
ensure anything anyway, so who is actually ensuring this
(and what happens if they don't do it)?

-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] slirp: Fix spelling in comment (enought -> enough, insure -> ensure)

[Eric Blake]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1198 bytes --]

On 09/27/2012 12:57 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
> ---
> 
> As a non native speaker, I feel that 'ensure' is better here than 'insure'.
> Could a native speaker please confirm that?

As a US speaker, I've seen both words used interchangeably.  I also
checked dictionary.com, where both words imply a guarantee, but 'insure'
has a connotation of a guarantee against loss (think insurance policy)
while 'ensure' tends to be used in most other situations.  That is, I am
in favor of this spelling change for connotation reasons.  But as Peter
pointed out, the sentence has more problems than just a spelling choice.

> - * For the error advice packets must first insure that the
> - * packet is large enought to contain the returned ip header.
> + * For the error advice packets must first ensure that the
> + * packet is large enough to contain the returned ip header.
>   * Only then can we do the check to see if 64 bits of packet
>   * data have been returned, since we need to check the returned
>   * ip header length.
> 

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake@redhat.com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 617 bytes --]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] slirp: Fix spelling in comment (enought -> enough, insure -> ensure)

[Eric Blake]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1198 bytes --]

On 09/27/2012 12:57 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
> ---
> 
> As a non native speaker, I feel that 'ensure' is better here than 'insure'.
> Could a native speaker please confirm that?

As a US speaker, I've seen both words used interchangeably.  I also
checked dictionary.com, where both words imply a guarantee, but 'insure'
has a connotation of a guarantee against loss (think insurance policy)
while 'ensure' tends to be used in most other situations.  That is, I am
in favor of this spelling change for connotation reasons.  But as Peter
pointed out, the sentence has more problems than just a spelling choice.

> - * For the error advice packets must first insure that the
> - * packet is large enought to contain the returned ip header.
> + * For the error advice packets must first ensure that the
> + * packet is large enough to contain the returned ip header.
>   * Only then can we do the check to see if 64 bits of packet
>   * data have been returned, since we need to check the returned
>   * ip header length.
> 

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake@redhat.com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 617 bytes --]

Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] slirp: Fix spelling in comment (enought -> enough, insure -> ensure)

[Stefan Weil]

Am 27.09.2012 21:13, schrieb Eric Blake:
> On 09/27/2012 12:57 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil<sw@weilnetz.de>
>> ---
>>
>> As a non native speaker, I feel that 'ensure' is better here than 'insure'.
>> Could a native speaker please confirm that?
>
> As a US speaker, I've seen both words used interchangeably.  I also
> checked dictionary.com, where both words imply a guarantee, but 'insure'
> has a connotation of a guarantee against loss (think insurance policy)
> while 'ensure' tends to be used in most other situations.  That is, I am
> in favor of this spelling change for connotation reasons.  But as Peter
> pointed out, the sentence has more problems than just a spelling choice.
>
>> - * For the error advice packets must first insure that the
>> - * packet is large enought to contain the returned ip header.
>> + * For the error advice packets must first ensure that the
>> + * packet is large enough to contain the returned ip header.
>>    * Only then can we do the check to see if 64 bits of packet
>>    * data have been returned, since we need to check the returned
>>    * ip header length.

Thanks for your and Peter's annotations.

It looks like these lines of comment are much older than QEMU.
I found code from 1995 which already contains them.

They are spread in BSD, Apple and Microsoft code,
so maybe we should add a comment which marks them
as a historic artefact which must be preserved :-)

I might also try to improve that sentence by adding 'we':

+ * For the error advice packets we must first ensure that the
+ * packet is large enough to contain the returned ip header.


or

+ * For the error advice packets we must first ensure that
+ * they are large enough to contain the returned ip header.

ICMP_ADVLENMIN seems to be the minimum length which meaningful
'error advice packets' must have.

Regards

Stefan

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] slirp: Fix spelling in comment (enought -> enough, insure -> ensure)

[Stefan Weil]

Am 27.09.2012 21:13, schrieb Eric Blake:
> On 09/27/2012 12:57 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil<sw@weilnetz.de>
>> ---
>>
>> As a non native speaker, I feel that 'ensure' is better here than 'insure'.
>> Could a native speaker please confirm that?
>
> As a US speaker, I've seen both words used interchangeably.  I also
> checked dictionary.com, where both words imply a guarantee, but 'insure'
> has a connotation of a guarantee against loss (think insurance policy)
> while 'ensure' tends to be used in most other situations.  That is, I am
> in favor of this spelling change for connotation reasons.  But as Peter
> pointed out, the sentence has more problems than just a spelling choice.
>
>> - * For the error advice packets must first insure that the
>> - * packet is large enought to contain the returned ip header.
>> + * For the error advice packets must first ensure that the
>> + * packet is large enough to contain the returned ip header.
>>    * Only then can we do the check to see if 64 bits of packet
>>    * data have been returned, since we need to check the returned
>>    * ip header length.

Thanks for your and Peter's annotations.

It looks like these lines of comment are much older than QEMU.
I found code from 1995 which already contains them.

They are spread in BSD, Apple and Microsoft code,
so maybe we should add a comment which marks them
as a historic artefact which must be preserved :-)

I might also try to improve that sentence by adding 'we':

+ * For the error advice packets we must first ensure that the
+ * packet is large enough to contain the returned ip header.


or

+ * For the error advice packets we must first ensure that
+ * they are large enough to contain the returned ip header.

ICMP_ADVLENMIN seems to be the minimum length which meaningful
'error advice packets' must have.

Regards

Stefan

Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] slirp: Fix spelling in comment (enought -> enough, insure -> ensure)

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 08:57:38PM +0200, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
> ---
> 
> As a non native speaker, I feel that 'ensure' is better here than 'insure'.
> Could a native speaker please confirm that?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stefan
> 
>  slirp/ip_icmp.h |    4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Thanks, applied to the trivial patches tree:
https://github.com/stefanha/qemu/commits/trivial-patches

Stefan

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] slirp: Fix spelling in comment (enought -> enough, insure -> ensure)

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 08:57:38PM +0200, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
> ---
> 
> As a non native speaker, I feel that 'ensure' is better here than 'insure'.
> Could a native speaker please confirm that?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stefan
> 
>  slirp/ip_icmp.h |    4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Thanks, applied to the trivial patches tree:
https://github.com/stefanha/qemu/commits/trivial-patches

Stefan