From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756827Ab0IBUBq (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:01:46 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:32321 "EHLO rcsinet10.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751113Ab0IBUBp (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:01:45 -0400 Message-ID: <4C800266.1000005@oracle.com> Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:00:38 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap Organization: Oracle Linux Engineering User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-3.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lucas De Marchi CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Fix typos References: <20100902121853.e90f6c53.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/02/10 12:31, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 16:18, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd take most of the corrections in Documentation/, but in general, >> I don't think that it's a good idea without some careful review. > > I plan to review it if it's indeed worth fixing those typos. I already > fixed several false positives like "rela" being changed to "real", > but since it's a 1.8 MB patch I think it's better to ask first before > making any other review. > >> >> E.g.: >> >> 1. changing thru to through isn't needed IMO. >> Can you add "thru" to your dictionary? > Yes, no problem > >> >> 2. >> -(Warning, pulses on ACK ar inverted by transistor, irq is rised up on sync >> +(Warning, pulses on ACK ar inverted by transistor, irq is rose up on sync >> > Humn.. indeed this seems to be a bad typo in my dictionary. > >> I'm not so sure about "is rose up" being better. and what about "ar"? > > I'm only changing words with 3 chars or more, because otherwise I > would have a lot of false positives, but I think I can add this word > without much trouble. > Mike's suggested change is good here. >> >> I saw a few others that I could comment on, but I lost them in the 1.8 MB patch file. > > If you say it's good, I can review it more carefully. It looks good for Documentation/. And fixing typos is certainly something that we want to do in user-visible messages, like printk strings. -- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***