From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1THL1z-00084t-9B for mharc-qemu-trivial@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:49:59 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34054) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THL1u-0007pT-IA for qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:49:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THL1t-0007Em-7k for qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:49:54 -0400 Received: from v220110690675601.yourvserver.net ([78.47.199.172]:50870) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THL1q-0007Cd-MC; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:49:50 -0400 Received: from localhost (v220110690675601.yourvserver.net.local [127.0.0.1]) by v220110690675601.yourvserver.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B697728003D; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:49:49 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at weilnetz.de Received: from v220110690675601.yourvserver.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (v220110690675601.yourvserver.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QjhgQrLUTNio; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:49:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from flocke.weilnetz.de (p54AD9EBA.dip.t-dialin.net [84.173.158.186]) by v220110690675601.yourvserver.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2193728003C; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:49:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] ident=stefan) by flocke.weilnetz.de with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1THL1o-0001ck-BU; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:49:48 +0200 Message-ID: <5064BBEC.8000007@weilnetz.de> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:49:48 +0200 From: Stefan Weil User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20120724 Iceowl/1.0b1 Icedove/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Blake References: <1348772258-31168-1-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de> <5064A546.9080302@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5064A546.9080302@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 78.47.199.172 Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, Jan Kiszka , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Peter Maydell Subject: Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] slirp: Fix spelling in comment (enought -> enough, insure -> ensure) X-BeenThere: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:49:57 -0000 Am 27.09.2012 21:13, schrieb Eric Blake: > On 09/27/2012 12:57 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil >> --- >> >> 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34017) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THL1s-0007iZ-8h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:49:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THL1q-0007DO-S7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:49:52 -0400 Message-ID: <5064BBEC.8000007@weilnetz.de> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:49:48 +0200 From: Stefan Weil MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1348772258-31168-1-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de> <5064A546.9080302@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5064A546.9080302@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] slirp: Fix spelling in comment (enought -> enough, insure -> ensure) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, Jan Kiszka , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Peter Maydell Am 27.09.2012 21:13, schrieb Eric Blake: > On 09/27/2012 12:57 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil >> --- >> >> 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