From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C939C2E0; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 18:06:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728497206; cv=none; b=monhG4LFGycXYJxPaxrMW9xwvaXSqZ7+NlZYaSs0pCXKaWj7QLkQfeDmTNtOtq/I0OAtyv5kZasS+fSIHSRsHhv5flk1fkr+h3SpboXRTLppyjYJLALZITCnmBVDu1n0uWNtZBClSDkEpLKtsAnMdD1C0D0n742UeVlq31C/peU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728497206; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YC9P5SNk5GHVvZTnIjiEdFOLrCQZWFvzCDlLBFuc0fM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=LJO7//Dtwwesjm6nZs1sKxJODEH4O5eGbAcofkVvaPRYPDyFBKZTViA67fP3l6e7T0lmQgkba17gnExh1G0uZ1dDXGzKVWIlhq8/LlNLmjuZX0wJOlaa7kvX76GBO9CCvZ8Zy+oOvg6HGWEldynAfJ9bxkQx70LR8+lxs5pEtsM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=Tmn2jzig; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="Tmn2jzig" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 19EB642B27 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1728497204; bh=oQpofaH96yKry9fYKjw5SE///dq1Nt0vTXGTZgu9LKU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Tmn2jzigdE46bw6J0qKKFI+hQrsqCZW4BI5otj5Xbk4gpHB5YpOIv5Db2WhfGabQT b5K1c39kEfH9FXGS0SqOBGjGTV3YIb9R0qFA0oMOJFQ6IOsliAop2i3r5q+e8Qu1ls 9Zjnedz/ZIQxyvYIyxmXURqcY1Mi20HQmwE7NB9HRxOF2XeLO8as/EkFUqV5U1MfFL DnAjT2BNZm+8DanXMdF/U3HoUn0A/jLn7ygMvAHuIgWjq5opEMlH5PrCUpVU0Rktsm PiphRLzRj5gsU5GK/YgF27WgUjrDb5Nfp6db1euiN63gcXrQuN5OPw+a3/Svijeb5G 0I4E/yGMm7L0Q== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:5e00:625::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 19EB642B27; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 18:06:44 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: "Everest K.C." , Mathieu Poirier Cc: andersson@kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Fix spelling error in remoteproc.rst In-Reply-To: References: <20241008071559.18523-1-everestkc@everestkc.com.np> Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2024 12:06:43 -0600 Message-ID: <87v7y19mmk.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Everest K.C." writes: > On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 9:54=E2=80=AFAM Mathieu Poirier > wrote: >> >> Good morning, >> >> This is a case of old english vs. new english. Using "implementors" is = still >> correct. Moreover, there are 33 instances of the word "implementor" in = the >> kernel tree. Unless there is an effor to change all occurences I will n= ot move >> forward with this patch. > I can work on changing all 33 instances of the word "implementor". > Should I create a patchset for it ? Honestly, given that "implementor" is correct, this really doesn't seem like it is worth the effort and churn. jon