I was prompted to write this little grammar fix series when reading
the fix from Attreyee [1], with review comments requesting changes
to that fix. So here's my version of the fix, with reviews from [1]
addressed (and distinct grammar fixes splitted).
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
Bagas Sanjaya (2):
Documentation: livepatch: Correct "step on each other's toes" idiom
Documentation: livepatch: Correct opposite of releasing locks
Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
base-commit: 98b1cc82c4affc16f5598d4fa14b1858671b2263
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
The opposite action of releasing locks is acquiring them, not getting
them (as in configuration options; the inverse of such action is
setting options). Correct it.
Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
index 000059b3cbde49..53b49dafd7ded8 100644
--- a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
+++ b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ some limitations, see below.
3. Consistency model
====================
-Functions are there for a reason. They take some input parameters, get or
+Functions are there for a reason. They take some input parameters, acquire or
release locks, read, process, and even write some data in a defined way,
have return values. In other words, each function has a defined semantic.
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
On 11/29/23 08:25, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> I was prompted to write this little grammar fix series when reading
> the fix from Attreyee [1], with review comments requesting changes
> to that fix. So here's my version of the fix, with reviews from [1]
> addressed (and distinct grammar fixes splitted).
>
Typical kernel workflow would be for Attreyee to incorporate feedback
and post their v2 after a day or two. From the format they posted, it
appears to be a first(ish) kernel contribution post. Let's be kind and
patient so they we all may benefit from the practice of iterating on
their patch.
--
Joe
Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]> writes:
> I was prompted to write this little grammar fix series when reading
> the fix from Attreyee [1], with review comments requesting changes
> to that fix. So here's my version of the fix, with reviews from [1]
> addressed (and distinct grammar fixes splitted).
How is this helpful? Why are you trying to push aside somebody who is
working toward a first contribution to the kernel? This is not the way
to help somebody learn to work with the kernel community.
Attreyee, I would like to encourage you to redo your patch set based on
the feedback you have received so that we can apply it.
Thanks,
jon
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 07:29:35AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I was prompted to write this little grammar fix series when reading
> > the fix from Attreyee [1], with review comments requesting changes
> > to that fix. So here's my version of the fix, with reviews from [1]
> > addressed (and distinct grammar fixes splitted).
>
> How is this helpful? Why are you trying to push aside somebody who is
> working toward a first contribution to the kernel? This is not the way
> to help somebody learn to work with the kernel community.
This is not the first such "contribution" from Bagas recently.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/[email protected]/
was as a result of
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/87r0klg8wl.fsf@debian-BULLSEYE-live-builder-AMD64/
I didn't say anything at the time, but clearly I should have squelched
this bad behaviour by Bagas before he did it to a newbie.
Bagas, find your own project to work on. Don't steal glory from others.
On 11/29/23 20:53, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> On 11/29/23 08:25, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>> I was prompted to write this little grammar fix series when reading
>> the fix from Attreyee [1], with review comments requesting changes
>> to that fix. So here's my version of the fix, with reviews from [1]
>> addressed (and distinct grammar fixes splitted).
>>
>
> Typical kernel workflow would be for Attreyee to incorporate feedback
> and post their v2 after a day or two. From the format they posted, it
> appears to be a first(ish) kernel contribution post. Let's be kind and
> patient so they we all may benefit from the practice of iterating on
> their patch.
>
I do this posting because I thought the OP (Attreyee) didn't respond in
timely manner (just like random Chinese contributors like @cdjrlc.com
and @208suo.com people).
Thanks.
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 06:58:16AM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> I do this posting because I thought the OP (Attreyee) didn't respond in
> timely manner (just like random Chinese contributors like @cdjrlc.com
> and @208suo.com people).
That's a ridiculous excuse. The original posting was two days ago!
If it had been a week since we last heard from Attreyee, I'd understand.
Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]> writes:
> On 11/29/23 20:53, Joe Lawrence wrote:
>> On 11/29/23 08:25, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>>> I was prompted to write this little grammar fix series when reading
>>> the fix from Attreyee [1], with review comments requesting changes
>>> to that fix. So here's my version of the fix, with reviews from [1]
>>> addressed (and distinct grammar fixes splitted).
>>>
>>
>> Typical kernel workflow would be for Attreyee to incorporate feedback
>> and post their v2 after a day or two. From the format they posted, it
>> appears to be a first(ish) kernel contribution post. Let's be kind and
>> patient so they we all may benefit from the practice of iterating on
>> their patch.
>>
>
> I do this posting because I thought the OP (Attreyee) didn't respond in
> timely manner (just like random Chinese contributors like @cdjrlc.com
> and @208suo.com people).
Seriously? The original post was on Monday, yours came less than 48
hours later. Not only can we not expect that kind of rapid turnaround
from anybody, but we actively discourage rapid resending of patches.
Rather than dig yourself in deeper, I suggest you simply apologize to
the original poster and find something more useful to do.
Thanks,
jon
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 03:26:18PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 07:29:35AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > I was prompted to write this little grammar fix series when reading
> > > the fix from Attreyee [1], with review comments requesting changes
> > > to that fix. So here's my version of the fix, with reviews from [1]
> > > addressed (and distinct grammar fixes splitted).
> >
> > How is this helpful? Why are you trying to push aside somebody who is
> > working toward a first contribution to the kernel? This is not the way
> > to help somebody learn to work with the kernel community.
>
> This is not the first such "contribution" from Bagas recently.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/[email protected]/
>
> was as a result of
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/87r0klg8wl.fsf@debian-BULLSEYE-live-builder-AMD64/
>
> I didn't say anything at the time, but clearly I should have squelched
> this bad behaviour by Bagas before he did it to a newbie.
>
> Bagas, find your own project to work on. Don't steal glory from others.
OK, thanks! I was in 'gabut mode' then...
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 09:07:01PM +0530, Attreyee M wrote:
> Respected Maintainers,
>
> Please give me some time to make the changes again.
> I will be making the changes in a day.
>
Please don't top-post; reply inline with appropriate context instead.
OK, see you in v2! Don't forget to Cc: me in the v2.
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:08:33AM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 06:58:16AM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > I do this posting because I thought the OP (Attreyee) didn't respond in
> > timely manner (just like random Chinese contributors like @cdjrlc.com
> > and @208suo.com people).
>
> That's a ridiculous excuse. The original posting was two days ago!
> If it had been a week since we last heard from Attreyee, I'd understand.
OK, thanks!
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 05:10:25PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On 11/29/23 20:53, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> >> On 11/29/23 08:25, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> >>> I was prompted to write this little grammar fix series when reading
> >>> the fix from Attreyee [1], with review comments requesting changes
> >>> to that fix. So here's my version of the fix, with reviews from [1]
> >>> addressed (and distinct grammar fixes splitted).
> >>>
> >>
> >> Typical kernel workflow would be for Attreyee to incorporate feedback
> >> and post their v2 after a day or two. From the format they posted, it
> >> appears to be a first(ish) kernel contribution post. Let's be kind and
> >> patient so they we all may benefit from the practice of iterating on
> >> their patch.
> >>
> >
> > I do this posting because I thought the OP (Attreyee) didn't respond in
> > timely manner (just like random Chinese contributors like @cdjrlc.com
> > and @208suo.com people).
>
> Seriously? The original post was on Monday, yours came less than 48
> hours later. Not only can we not expect that kind of rapid turnaround
> from anybody, but we actively discourage rapid resending of patches.
> Rather than dig yourself in deeper, I suggest you simply apologize to
> the original poster and find something more useful to do.
Done, thanks!
And yes, I'm also focusing on regression tracking and Bugzilla
triaging.
Ciao, Bagas.
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara