Signed-off-by: Qinghuang Feng <[email protected]>
---
diff --git a/include/net/inet_timewait_sock.h b/include/net/inet_timewait_sock.h
index 4b8ece2..2540d3a 100644
--- a/include/net/inet_timewait_sock.h
+++ b/include/net/inet_timewait_sock.h
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ struct inet_bind_bucket;
struct inet_timewait_sock {
/*
* Now struct sock also uses sock_common, so please just
- * don't add nothing before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
+ * don't add anything before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
*/
struct sock_common __tw_common;
#define tw_family __tw_common.skc_family
diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
index 5a3a151..a587e9d 100644
--- a/include/net/sock.h
+++ b/include/net/sock.h
@@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ struct sock_common {
struct sock {
/*
* Now struct inet_timewait_sock also uses sock_common, so please just
- * don't add nothing before this first member (__sk_common) --acme
+ * don't add anything before this first member (__sk_common) --acme
*/
struct sock_common __sk_common;
#define sk_family __sk_common.skc_family
> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ struct inet_bind_bucket;
> struct inet_timewait_sock {
> /*
> * Now struct sock also uses sock_common, so please just
> - * don't add nothing before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
> + * don't add anything before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
They are the same meaning...
> */
> struct sock_common __tw_common;
> #define tw_family __tw_common.skc_family
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 09:05 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> > @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ struct inet_bind_bucket;
> > struct inet_timewait_sock {
> > /*
> > * Now struct sock also uses sock_common, so please just
> > - * don't add nothing before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
> > + * don't add anything before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
>
> They are the same meaning...
A double-negative can be an informal way of reinforcing a negative, but
can sometimes mean the positive. So this change would remove a minor
ambiguity. However I think it should be clear that it is not compulsory
to add new members to the structure. ;-)
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
From: Ben Hutchings <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:39:18 +0000
> On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 09:05 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> > > @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ struct inet_bind_bucket;
> > > struct inet_timewait_sock {
> > > /*
> > > * Now struct sock also uses sock_common, so please just
> > > - * don't add nothing before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
> > > + * don't add anything before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
> >
> > They are the same meaning...
>
> A double-negative can be an informal way of reinforcing a negative, but
> can sometimes mean the positive. So this change would remove a minor
> ambiguity. However I think it should be clear that it is not compulsory
> to add new members to the structure. ;-)
After all of this discussion, I think I'm going to keep this comment
as-is. :-)
The patch will make sense for some people. I was puzzled about the
double-negative for quite a while.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:53 PM, David Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Ben Hutchings <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:39:18 +0000
>
>> On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 09:05 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>> > > @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ struct inet_bind_bucket;
>> > > struct inet_timewait_sock {
>> > > /*
>> > > * Now struct sock also uses sock_common, so please just
>> > > - * don't add nothing before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
>> > > + * don't add anything before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
>> >
>> > They are the same meaning...
>>
>> A double-negative can be an informal way of reinforcing a negative, but
>> can sometimes mean the positive. So this change would remove a minor
>> ambiguity. However I think it should be clear that it is not compulsory
>> to add new members to the structure. ;-)
>
> After all of this discussion, I think I'm going to keep this comment
> as-is. :-)
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
From: joe tian <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:36:51 +0800
> 2009/1/12 Li Zefan <[email protected]>:
> >> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ struct inet_bind_bucket;
> >> struct inet_timewait_sock {
> >> /*
> >> * Now struct sock also uses sock_common, so please just
> >> - * don't add nothing before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
> >> + * don't add anything before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
> >
> > They are the same meaning...
> >
> I don't think they are the same meaning.
> I think "don't add anything" means "do add nothing" but not means "don't add
> nothing"
No offense to anyone, but the only people arguing for "correctness"
seem to be non-native speakers of English. Is this correct? :-)
As Ben tries to explain, "don't add nothing" is a colloquialism of
English that in fact can mean "do not add"
It sounds amusing when read, and I'm not killing the character and
personality of this comment just for some language lawyering.
No way.
David Miller wrote:
> From: joe tian <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:36:51 +0800
>
>> 2009/1/12 Li Zefan <[email protected]>:
>>>> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ struct inet_bind_bucket;
>>>> struct inet_timewait_sock {
>>>> /*
>>>> * Now struct sock also uses sock_common, so please just
>>>> - * don't add nothing before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
>>>> + * don't add anything before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
>>> They are the same meaning...
>>>
>> I don't think they are the same meaning.
>> I think "don't add anything" means "do add nothing" but not means "don't add
>> nothing"
>
> No offense to anyone, but the only people arguing for "correctness"
> seem to be non-native speakers of English. Is this correct? :-)
>
Yes, Chinese guys, to be more specific. ;)
> As Ben tries to explain, "don't add nothing" is a colloquialism of
> English that in fact can mean "do not add"
>
> It sounds amusing when read, and I'm not killing the character and
> personality of this comment just for some language lawyering.
>
> No way.
>
David Miller a ?crit :
> From: joe tian <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:36:51 +0800
>
>> 2009/1/12 Li Zefan <[email protected]>:
>>>> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ struct inet_bind_bucket;
>>>> struct inet_timewait_sock {
>>>> /*
>>>> * Now struct sock also uses sock_common, so please just
>>>> - * don't add nothing before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
>>>> + * don't add anything before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
>>> They are the same meaning...
>>>
>> I don't think they are the same meaning.
>> I think "don't add anything" means "do add nothing" but not means "don't add
>> nothing"
>
> No offense to anyone, but the only people arguing for "correctness"
> seem to be non-native speakers of English. Is this correct? :-)
>
> As Ben tries to explain, "don't add nothing" is a colloquialism of
> English that in fact can mean "do not add"
>
> It sounds amusing when read, and I'm not killing the character and
> personality of this comment just for some language lawyering.
>
> No way.
Oh my God... time for me to check what is a colloquialism :)
According to wikipedia :
A colloquialism is an expression not used in formal speech,
writing or paralinguistics. Colloquialisms are also sometimes
referred to collectively as "colloquial language". [1] Colloquialisms
or colloquial language is considered to be characteristic of or only
appropriate for casual, ordinary, familiar, or informal conversation
rather than formal speech or writing.[2] Dictionaries often display
colloquial words and phrases with the abbreviation colloq. as an identifier.
Ouch... back to coding :)
Daolong Wang wrote:
> The patch will make sense for some people. I was puzzled about the
> double-negative for quite a while.
>
"Don't add nothing," is not a colloquialism; it's just bad grammar. The
meaning is that you must not add no thing, therefore that you must add
something. It is a common error amongst English speakers, even amongst
those who speak good, but. :-)
As with spelling errors, corrections of this sort of thing are trivial
and a waste of time. I'm opposed to patches like that; they add no
value and could be said to remove "character"; if that's important.
Am American vulgarism seems appropriate: get over it.
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> David Miller a ?crit :
>
>> From: joe tian <[email protected]>
>> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:36:51 +0800
>>
>>
>>> 2009/1/12 Li Zefan <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>>> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ struct inet_bind_bucket;
>>>>> struct inet_timewait_sock {
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * Now struct sock also uses sock_common, so please just
>>>>> - * don't add nothing before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
>>>>> + * don't add anything before this first member (__tw_common) --acme
>>>>>
>>>> They are the same meaning...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't think they are the same meaning.
>>> I think "don't add anything" means "do add nothing" but not means "don't add
>>> nothing"
>>>
>> No offense to anyone, but the only people arguing for "correctness"
>> seem to be non-native speakers of English. Is this correct? :-)
>>
>> As Ben tries to explain, "don't add nothing" is a colloquialism of
>> English that in fact can mean "do not add"
>>
>> It sounds amusing when read, and I'm not killing the character and
>> personality of this comment just for some language lawyering.
>>
>> No way.
>>
>
> Oh my God... time for me to check what is a colloquialism :)
>
>
> According to wikipedia :
>
> A colloquialism is an expression not used in formal speech,
> writing or paralinguistics. Colloquialisms are also sometimes
> referred to collectively as "colloquial language". [1] Colloquialisms
> or colloquial language is considered to be characteristic of or only
> appropriate for casual, ordinary, familiar, or informal conversation
> rather than formal speech or writing.
So the Linux Kernels comments are only for native speakers of English
that are familiar with these colloquialisms?
I also would have to think longer about the current comment than i would
have to on the patched one.
When we reduce parentheses and have coding style definitions to make the
reading of source code easy and fast - why don't we fix these
colloquialisms that are confusing non-native English speakers?
I personally would vote for this particular patch - but i assume
thousands of these patches might jam the mailing lists then :-(
Regards,
Oliver
> "Don't add nothing," is not a colloquialism; it's just bad grammar. The
It's a matter of dialect. For historical reasons English emerged from a
mix of languages and cultures (even within the UK). In some of the
originating languages and areas a double negative is emphatic in others
it negates the negation. Thus it is a bad idea when using globally - as
nobody is quite sure what you mean.
> As with spelling errors, corrections of this sort of thing are trivial
> and a waste of time. I'm opposed to patches like that; they add no
> value and could be said to remove "character"; if that's important.
You may be so opposed, but they can be very problematic to non-English
speakers trying to use a dictionary or to understand if they are seeing a
typo or an unknown word: thus we do fix them. This is why we have the
trivial patch maintainer for such small fixes.
TRIVIAL PATCHES
P: Jiri Kosina
M: [email protected]
L: [email protected]
T: git kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jikos/trivial.git
S: Maintained
Alan Cox wrote:
>> "Don't add nothing," is not a colloquialism; it's just bad grammar. The
>>
>
> It's a matter of dialect. For historical reasons English emerged from a
> mix of languages and cultures (even within the UK). In some of the
> originating languages and areas a double negative is emphatic in others
> it negates the negation. Thus it is a bad idea when using globally - as
> nobody is quite sure what you mean.
There's an amusing story about a lecture, in which the professor was
saying that in many cultures, in many languages, a double negative
becomes a positive, but that nowhere did a double positive become a
negative. From the back of the class drifted a bored, "yeah, yeah!"
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:11:19 +1030, David Newall said:
> Daolong Wang wrote:
> > The patch will make sense for some people. I was puzzled about the
> > double-negative for quite a while.
> >
>
> "Don't add nothing," is not a colloquialism; it's just bad grammar. The
> meaning is that you must not add no thing, therefore that you must add
> something. It is a common error amongst English speakers, even amongst
> those who speak good, but. :-)
Those of us who have worked with weakly-typed languages who have coded
stuff like 'X + 0.0' to cast X from string to floating point know all
too well that sometimes, adding nothing is in fact what you want to do.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:11:19 +1030, David Newall said:
>> Daolong Wang wrote:
>>> The patch will make sense for some people. I was puzzled about the
>>> double-negative for quite a while.
>>>
>> "Don't add nothing," is not a colloquialism; it's just bad grammar. The
>> meaning is that you must not add no thing, therefore that you must add
>> something. It is a common error amongst English speakers, even amongst
>> those who speak good, but. :-)
>
> Those of us who have worked with weakly-typed languages who have coded
> stuff like 'X + 0.0' to cast X from string to floating point know all
> too well that sometimes, adding nothing is in fact what you want to do.
That didn't sway the argument^W discussion IMO.
for the patch: Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> // :)
~Randy