* [PATCH] remoteproc: Fix spelling error in remoteproc.rst
@ 2024-10-08 7:15 Everest K.C.
2024-10-09 15:54 ` Mathieu Poirier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Everest K.C. @ 2024-10-08 7:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: andersson, mathieu.poirier, corbet
Cc: Everest K.C., skhan, linux-remoteproc, linux-doc, linux-kernel
Following spelling error reported by codespell
was fixed:
implementors ==> implementers
Signed-off-by: Everest K.C. <everestkc@everestkc.com.np>
---
Documentation/staging/remoteproc.rst | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/staging/remoteproc.rst b/Documentation/staging/remoteproc.rst
index 348ee7e508ac..5c226fa076d6 100644
--- a/Documentation/staging/remoteproc.rst
+++ b/Documentation/staging/remoteproc.rst
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ Typical usage
rproc_shutdown(my_rproc);
}
-API for implementors
+API for implementers
====================
::
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Fix spelling error in remoteproc.rst
2024-10-08 7:15 [PATCH] remoteproc: Fix spelling error in remoteproc.rst Everest K.C.
@ 2024-10-09 15:54 ` Mathieu Poirier
2024-10-09 17:29 ` Everest K.C.
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mathieu Poirier @ 2024-10-09 15:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Everest K.C.
Cc: andersson, corbet, skhan, linux-remoteproc, linux-doc,
linux-kernel
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 not move
forward with this patch.
Thanks,
Mathieu
On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 01:15:57AM -0600, Everest K.C. wrote:
> Following spelling error reported by codespell
> was fixed:
> implementors ==> implementers
>
> Signed-off-by: Everest K.C. <everestkc@everestkc.com.np>
> ---
> Documentation/staging/remoteproc.rst | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/staging/remoteproc.rst b/Documentation/staging/remoteproc.rst
> index 348ee7e508ac..5c226fa076d6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/staging/remoteproc.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/staging/remoteproc.rst
> @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ Typical usage
> rproc_shutdown(my_rproc);
> }
>
> -API for implementors
> +API for implementers
> ====================
>
> ::
> --
> 2.43.0
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Fix spelling error in remoteproc.rst
2024-10-09 15:54 ` Mathieu Poirier
@ 2024-10-09 17:29 ` Everest K.C.
2024-10-09 18:06 ` Jonathan Corbet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Everest K.C. @ 2024-10-09 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mathieu Poirier
Cc: andersson, corbet, skhan, linux-remoteproc, linux-doc,
linux-kernel
On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 9:54 AM Mathieu Poirier
<mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> 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 not move
> forward with this patch.
I can work on changing all 33 instances of the word "implementor".
Should I create a patchset for it ?
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
>
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 01:15:57AM -0600, Everest K.C. wrote:
> > Following spelling error reported by codespell
> > was fixed:
> > implementors ==> implementers
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Everest K.C. <everestkc@everestkc.com.np>
> > ---
> > Documentation/staging/remoteproc.rst | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/staging/remoteproc.rst b/Documentation/staging/remoteproc.rst
> > index 348ee7e508ac..5c226fa076d6 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/staging/remoteproc.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/staging/remoteproc.rst
> > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ Typical usage
> > rproc_shutdown(my_rproc);
> > }
> >
> > -API for implementors
> > +API for implementers
> > ====================
> >
> > ::
> > --
> > 2.43.0
> >
Thanks,
Everest K.C.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Fix spelling error in remoteproc.rst
2024-10-09 17:29 ` Everest K.C.
@ 2024-10-09 18:06 ` Jonathan Corbet
2024-10-09 18:08 ` Everest K.C.
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2024-10-09 18:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Everest K.C., Mathieu Poirier
Cc: andersson, skhan, linux-remoteproc, linux-doc, linux-kernel
"Everest K.C." <everestkc@everestkc.com.np> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 9:54 AM Mathieu Poirier
> <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> 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 not 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Fix spelling error in remoteproc.rst
2024-10-09 18:06 ` Jonathan Corbet
@ 2024-10-09 18:08 ` Everest K.C.
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Everest K.C. @ 2024-10-09 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Corbet
Cc: Mathieu Poirier, andersson, skhan, linux-remoteproc, linux-doc,
linux-kernel
On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 12:06 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
>
> "Everest K.C." <everestkc@everestkc.com.np> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 9:54 AM Mathieu Poirier
> > <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> 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 not 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.
Noted.
> jon
With Regards,
Everest K.C.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-10-09 18:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-10-08 7:15 [PATCH] remoteproc: Fix spelling error in remoteproc.rst Everest K.C.
2024-10-09 15:54 ` Mathieu Poirier
2024-10-09 17:29 ` Everest K.C.
2024-10-09 18:06 ` Jonathan Corbet
2024-10-09 18:08 ` Everest K.C.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox