[PATCH] hrtimers: doc cleanup

[PATCH] hrtimers: doc cleanup

[Cao jin]

It has:
a tense correction(led->leads);
a typo(unevitably->inevitably);
a logic error correction(unacceptable->acceptable)

Signed-off-by: Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
 Documentation/timers/hrtimers.txt | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/timers/hrtimers.txt b/Documentation/timers/hrtimers.txt
index ce31f65..347ad82 100644
--- a/Documentation/timers/hrtimers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/timers/hrtimers.txt
@@ -28,10 +28,10 @@ several reasons why such integration is hard/impossible:
 
 - the unpredictable [O(N)] overhead of cascading leads to delays which
   necessitate a more complex handling of high resolution timers, which
-  in turn decreases robustness. Such a design still led to rather large
+  in turn decreases robustness. Such a design still leads to rather large
   timing inaccuracies. Cascading is a fundamental property of the timer
-  wheel concept, it cannot be 'designed out' without unevitably
-  degrading other portions of the timers.c code in an unacceptable way.
+  wheel concept, it cannot be 'designed out' without inevitably
+  degrading other portions of the timers.c code in an acceptable way.
 
 - the implementation of the current posix-timer subsystem on top of
   the timer wheel has already introduced a quite complex handling of
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [PATCH] hrtimers: doc cleanup

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 17:09:54 +0800
Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> -  wheel concept, it cannot be 'designed out' without unevitably
> -  degrading other portions of the timers.c code in an unacceptable way.
> +  wheel concept, it cannot be 'designed out' without inevitably
> +  degrading other portions of the timers.c code in an acceptable way.

This change is incorrect - "unacceptable" is exactly what the writer
wanted to say here.

jon

Re: [PATCH] hrtimers: doc cleanup

[Cao jin]

Hi jon
     Thanks for your quick respond for my 1st patch here.

On 04/21/2016 05:56 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 17:09:54 +0800
> Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>> -  wheel concept, it cannot be 'designed out' without unevitably
>> -  degrading other portions of the timers.c code in an unacceptable way.
>> +  wheel concept, it cannot be 'designed out' without inevitably
>> +  degrading other portions of the timers.c code in an acceptable way.
>
> This change is incorrect - "unacceptable" is exactly what the writer
> wanted to say here.
>
*it cannot be 'designed out' without inevitably degrading other portions 
of the timers.c code in an unacceptable way*

equals

*it can be 'designed out' ... in an acceptable way*, I think.

So, just from semantics, my feeling is, *it cannot be 'designed out' in 
an acceptable way* is the reason why integration is hard. Am I still wrong?

-- 
Yours Sincerely,

Cao jin

Re: [PATCH] hrtimers: doc cleanup

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 18:25:41 +0800
Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> > This change is incorrect - "unacceptable" is exactly what the writer
> > wanted to say here.
> >  
> *it cannot be 'designed out' without inevitably degrading other portions 
> of the timers.c code in an unacceptable way*
> 
> equals
> 
> *it can be 'designed out' ... in an acceptable way*, I think.
> 
> So, just from semantics, my feeling is, *it cannot be 'designed out' in 
> an acceptable way* is the reason why integration is hard. Am I still wrong?

The original author, clearly, was talking about the degradation being
unacceptable.  It seems clear enough, I don't think that change should be
made.

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH] hrtimers: doc cleanup

[Cao jin]

On 04/21/2016 09:23 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 18:25:41 +0800
> Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>>> This change is incorrect - "unacceptable" is exactly what the writer
>>> wanted to say here.
>>>
>> *it cannot be 'designed out' without inevitably degrading other portions
>> of the timers.c code in an unacceptable way*
>>
>> equals
>>
>> *it can be 'designed out' ... in an acceptable way*, I think.
>>
>> So, just from semantics, my feeling is, *it cannot be 'designed out' in
>> an acceptable way* is the reason why integration is hard. Am I still wrong?
>
> The original author, clearly, was talking about the degradation being
> unacceptable.  It seems clear enough, I don't think that change should be
> made.
>

Thanks, will remove the change in v2

-- 
Yours Sincerely,

Cao jin