Respected Maintainers,
I have made some grammatical changes in the livepatch.rst file where I
felt that the sentence would have sounded more correct and would have become easy for
beginners to understand by reading.
Requesting review of my proposed changes from the mainatiners.
Thank You
Attreyee Mukherjee
Signed-off-by: attreyee-muk <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
index 68e3651e8af9..a2d2317b7d6b 100644
--- a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
+++ b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
@@ -35,11 +35,11 @@ and livepatching:
compiler using the '-pg' gcc option.
- Livepatching typically needs to redirect the code at the very beginning
- of the function entry before the function parameters or the stack
+ of the function entry, before the function parameters or the stack
are in any way modified.
All three approaches need to modify the existing code at runtime. Therefore
-they need to be aware of each other and not step over each other's toes.
+they need to be aware of each other and not step over each others' toes.
Most of these problems are solved by using the dynamic ftrace framework as
a base. A Kprobe is registered as a ftrace handler when the function entry
is probed, see CONFIG_KPROBES_ON_FTRACE. Also an alternative function from
@@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ some limitations, see below.
3. Consistency model
====================
-Functions are there for a reason. They take some input parameters, get or
-release locks, read, process, and even write some data in a defined way,
+Functions are there for a reason. They take some input parameters, acquire or
+release locks, read, process, write some data in a defined way, and also
have return values. In other words, each function has a defined semantic.
Many fixes do not change the semantic of the modified functions. For
--
2.34.1
attreyee-muk <[email protected]> writes:
> Respected Maintainers,
>
> I have made some grammatical changes in the livepatch.rst file where I
> felt that the sentence would have sounded more correct and would have become easy for
> beginners to understand by reading.
> Requesting review of my proposed changes from the mainatiners.
>
> Thank You
> Attreyee Mukherjee
>
> Signed-off-by: attreyee-muk <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Your changes seem OK as far as they go. But please read our
documentation on patch submission:
https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html
..and specifically the parts about writing proper changelogs and the use
of a full name for your signoff.
Thanks,
jon
Hi,
On 11/27/23 07:57, attreyee-muk wrote:
> Respected Maintainers,
>
> I have made some grammatical changes in the livepatch.rst file where I
> felt that the sentence would have sounded more correct and would have become easy for
> beginners to understand by reading.
> Requesting review of my proposed changes from the mainatiners.
>
> Thank You
> Attreyee Mukherjee
>
> Signed-off-by: attreyee-muk <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
> index 68e3651e8af9..a2d2317b7d6b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
> @@ -35,11 +35,11 @@ and livepatching:
>
> All three approaches need to modify the existing code at runtime. Therefore
> -they need to be aware of each other and not step over each other's toes.
> +they need to be aware of each other and not step over each others' toes.
I've never seen that written like that, so I disagree here. FWIW.
> Most of these problems are solved by using the dynamic ftrace framework as
> a base. A Kprobe is registered as a ftrace handler when the function entry
> is probed, see CONFIG_KPROBES_ON_FTRACE. Also an alternative function from
thanks.
--
~Randy
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 11:41:31AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/27/23 07:57, attreyee-muk wrote:
> > Respected Maintainers,
> >
> > I have made some grammatical changes in the livepatch.rst file where I
> > felt that the sentence would have sounded more correct and would have become easy for
> > beginners to understand by reading.
> > Requesting review of my proposed changes from the mainatiners.
> >
> > Thank You
> > Attreyee Mukherjee
> >
> > Signed-off-by: attreyee-muk <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst | 8 ++++----
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
> > index 68e3651e8af9..a2d2317b7d6b 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
> > @@ -35,11 +35,11 @@ and livepatching:
> >
> > All three approaches need to modify the existing code at runtime. Therefore
> > -they need to be aware of each other and not step over each other's toes.
> > +they need to be aware of each other and not step over each others' toes.
>
> I've never seen that written like that, so I disagree here. FWIW.
"Step over" is new to me too. I see "step on" much more often.
As far as placement of the apostrophe,
https://ludwig.guru/s/step+on+each+others+toes
suggests either omitting the apostrophe or placing it after the s,
as attreyee-muk has done is most common.
On 11/28/23 06:12, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 11:41:31AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/27/23 07:57, attreyee-muk wrote:
>>> Respected Maintainers,
>>>
>>> I have made some grammatical changes in the livepatch.rst file where I
>>> felt that the sentence would have sounded more correct and would have become easy for
>>> beginners to understand by reading.
>>> Requesting review of my proposed changes from the mainatiners.
>>>
>>> Thank You
>>> Attreyee Mukherjee
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: attreyee-muk <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst | 8 ++++----
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
>>> index 68e3651e8af9..a2d2317b7d6b 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
>>> +++ b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
>>> @@ -35,11 +35,11 @@ and livepatching:
>>>
>>> All three approaches need to modify the existing code at runtime. Therefore
>>> -they need to be aware of each other and not step over each other's toes.
>>> +they need to be aware of each other and not step over each others' toes.
>>
>> I've never seen that written like that, so I disagree here. FWIW.
>
> "Step over" is new to me too. I see "step on" much more often.
Agreed.
> As far as placement of the apostrophe,
> https://ludwig.guru/s/step+on+each+others+toes
> suggests either omitting the apostrophe or placing it after the s,
> as attreyee-muk has done is most common.
Apparently you can find anything on the internet. :)
Here's the other side:
https://jakubmarian.com/each-others-vs-each-others-in-english/
--
~Randy
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
>
> On 11/28/23 06:12, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 11:41:31AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 11/27/23 07:57, attreyee-muk wrote:
> >>> Respected Maintainers,
> >>>
> >>> I have made some grammatical changes in the livepatch.rst file where I
> >>> felt that the sentence would have sounded more correct and would have become easy for
> >>> beginners to understand by reading.
> >>> Requesting review of my proposed changes from the mainatiners.
> >>>
> >>> Thank You
> >>> Attreyee Mukherjee
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: attreyee-muk <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>> Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst | 8 ++++----
> >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
> >>> index 68e3651e8af9..a2d2317b7d6b 100644
> >>> --- a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.rst
> >>> @@ -35,11 +35,11 @@ and livepatching:
> >>>
> >>> All three approaches need to modify the existing code at runtime. Therefore
> >>> -they need to be aware of each other and not step over each other's toes.
> >>> +they need to be aware of each other and not step over each others' toes.
> >>
> >> I've never seen that written like that, so I disagree here. FWIW.
> >
> > "Step over" is new to me too. I see "step on" much more often.
>
> Agreed.
Yes. Attreyee, please fix this instead.
> > As far as placement of the apostrophe,
> > https://ludwig.guru/s/step+on+each+others+toes
> > suggests either omitting the apostrophe or placing it after the s,
> > as attreyee-muk has done is most common.
>
> Apparently you can find anything on the internet. :)
>
> Here's the other side:
>
> https://jakubmarian.com/each-others-vs-each-others-in-english/
I am not a native speaker, but "step on each other's toe" sounds the best
to me. Or perhaps even "they need to be aware of each other and not step
on their toes" since it is then kind of implied? English is difficult :).
Miroslav
On 11/29/23 05:08, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>
> I am not a native speaker, but "step on each other's toe" sounds the best
> to me. Or perhaps even "they need to be aware of each other and not step
> on their toes" since it is then kind of implied? English is difficult :).
>
Native speaker here, so don't ask me what's grammatically accurate :D I
would definitely say "step on" vs. "step over". I would also write
"each other's toes", but not flinch if I read "each others' toes" or
even "each others toes".
After thinking about it for more that 30s, I might consider rewording
the sentence to avoid the idiom altogether, something like: "Therefore
they need to coordinate to avoid interfering with each other."
--
Joe