[PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt

[PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt

[Dmitri Vorobiev]

This patch deletes a couple of superfluous word occurrences in the
document Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt.
---
Sorry for a duplicate email, I forgot to Cc LKML when sending the patch.

 Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt b/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
index 6223eac..ed57b53 100644
--- a/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
+++ b/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ here; a summary of the common scenarios is presented below:
    unaligned access to be corrected.
  - Some architectures are not capable of unaligned memory access, but will
    silently perform a different memory access to the one that was requested,
-   resulting a a subtle code bug that is hard to detect!
+   resulting a subtle code bug that is hard to detect!
 
 It should be obvious from the above that if your code causes unaligned
 memory accesses to happen, your code will not work correctly on certain
@@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ memory and you wish to avoid unaligned access, its usage is as follows:
 
 	u32 value = get_unaligned((u32 *) data);
 
-These macros work work for memory accesses of any length (not just 32 bits as
+These macros work for memory accesses of any length (not just 32 bits as
 in the examples above). Be aware that when compared to standard access of
 aligned memory, using these macros to access unaligned memory can be costly in
 terms of performance.
-- 
1.5.3.6

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt

[Sebastien Dugue]

  Hi Dmitri,

  one more typo I guess:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:10:42 +0300 Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@gmail.com> wrote:

> This patch deletes a couple of superfluous word occurrences in the
> document Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt.
> ---
> Sorry for a duplicate email, I forgot to Cc LKML when sending the patch.
> 
>  Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt b/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
> index 6223eac..ed57b53 100644
> --- a/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ here; a summary of the common scenarios is presented below:
>     unaligned access to be corrected.
>   - Some architectures are not capable of unaligned memory access, but will
>     silently perform a different memory access to the one that was requested,
> -   resulting a a subtle code bug that is hard to detect!
> +   resulting a subtle code bug that is hard to detect!
                ^
               in a

  Sebastien.

>  
>  It should be obvious from the above that if your code causes unaligned
>  memory accesses to happen, your code will not work correctly on certain
> @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ memory and you wish to avoid unaligned access, its usage is as follows:
>  
>  	u32 value = get_unaligned((u32 *) data);
>  
> -These macros work work for memory accesses of any length (not just 32 bits as
> +These macros work for memory accesses of any length (not just 32 bits as
>  in the examples above). Be aware that when compared to standard access of
>  aligned memory, using these macros to access unaligned memory can be costly in
>  terms of performance.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt

[Dmitri Vorobiev]

Sebastien Dugue wrote:
>   Hi Dmitri,
> 
>   one more typo I guess:
> 
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:10:42 +0300 Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> This patch deletes a couple of superfluous word occurrences in the
>> document Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt.
>> ---
>> Sorry for a duplicate email, I forgot to Cc LKML when sending the patch.
>>
>>  Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt |    4 ++--
>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt b/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
>> index 6223eac..ed57b53 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
>> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ here; a summary of the common scenarios is presented below:
>>     unaligned access to be corrected.
>>   - Some architectures are not capable of unaligned memory access, but will
>>     silently perform a different memory access to the one that was requested,
>> -   resulting a a subtle code bug that is hard to detect!
>> +   resulting a subtle code bug that is hard to detect!
>                 ^
>                in a

Although those English dictionaries that I have consulted do indicate that
"result" is an intransitive verb, there are many occurrences reported by Google
when this verb takes a direct object like in the following phrase: "However,
inner space of the stand 2 of the drum washing machine 1 is not used,
resulting a problem of wasting space."

English is not my mother tongue so I can't claim I have a good ear for the
language. Are there any native speakers who could help, please?

Dmitri

> 
>   Sebastien.
> 
>>  
>>  It should be obvious from the above that if your code causes unaligned
>>  memory accesses to happen, your code will not work correctly on certain
>> @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ memory and you wish to avoid unaligned access, its usage is as follows:
>>  
>>  	u32 value = get_unaligned((u32 *) data);
>>  
>> -These macros work work for memory accesses of any length (not just 32 bits as
>> +These macros work for memory accesses of any length (not just 32 bits as
>>  in the examples above). Be aware that when compared to standard access of
>>  aligned memory, using these macros to access unaligned memory can be costly in
>>  terms of performance.
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt

[Randy Dunlap]

Dmitri Vorobiev wrote:
> Sebastien Dugue wrote:
>>   Hi Dmitri,
>>
>>   one more typo I guess:
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:10:42 +0300 Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This patch deletes a couple of superfluous word occurrences in the
>>> document Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt.
>>> ---
>>> Sorry for a duplicate email, I forgot to Cc LKML when sending the patch.
>>>
>>>  Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt |    4 ++--
>>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt b/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
>>> index 6223eac..ed57b53 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
>>> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ here; a summary of the common scenarios is presented below:
>>>     unaligned access to be corrected.
>>>   - Some architectures are not capable of unaligned memory access, but will
>>>     silently perform a different memory access to the one that was requested,
>>> -   resulting a a subtle code bug that is hard to detect!
>>> +   resulting a subtle code bug that is hard to detect!
>>                 ^
>>                in a
> 
> Although those English dictionaries that I have consulted do indicate that
> "result" is an intransitive verb, there are many occurrences reported by Google
> when this verb takes a direct object like in the following phrase: "However,
> inner space of the stand 2 of the drum washing machine 1 is not used,
> resulting a problem of wasting space."
> 
> English is not my mother tongue so I can't claim I have a good ear for the
> language. Are there any native speakers who could help, please?

I'll ack the "in a" change.

> Dmitri
> 
>>   Sebastien.
>>
>>>  
>>>  It should be obvious from the above that if your code causes unaligned
>>>  memory accesses to happen, your code will not work correctly on certain
>>> @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ memory and you wish to avoid unaligned access, its usage is as follows:
>>>  
>>>  	u32 value = get_unaligned((u32 *) data);
>>>  
>>> -These macros work work for memory accesses of any length (not just 32 bits as
>>> +These macros work for memory accesses of any length (not just 32 bits as
>>>  in the examples above). Be aware that when compared to standard access of
>>>  aligned memory, using these macros to access unaligned memory can be costly in
>>>  terms of performance.
> 


-- 
~Randy