[PATCH] remoteproc: Fix spelling error in remoteproc.rst

[PATCH] remoteproc: Fix spelling error in remoteproc.rst

[Everest K.C.]

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

Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Fix spelling error in remoteproc.rst

[Mathieu Poirier]

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
> 

Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Fix spelling error in remoteproc.rst

[Everest K.C.]

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.

Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Fix spelling error in remoteproc.rst

[Jonathan Corbet]

"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

Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Fix spelling error in remoteproc.rst

[Everest K.C.]

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.