Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:50:25 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@canonical.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Xiaofeng Cao <cxfcosmos@gmail.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Xiaofeng Cao <caoxiaofeng@yulong.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/dcache: fix typos and sentence disorder
Message-ID: <20210318165025.qquejvrcgwfyrrfg@gmail.com>
References: <20210318143153.13455-1-caoxiaofeng@yulong.com>
 <20210318150020.GP3420@casper.infradead.org>
 <YFOBVg8UiQh4Z4II@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YFOBVg8UiQh4Z4II@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 04:35:34PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 03:00:20PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:31:53PM +0800, Xiaofeng Cao wrote:
> > > change 'sould' to 'should'
> > > change 'colocated' to 'collocated'
> > 
> > uh.  collocated is incorrect.  colocated is correct.
> > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colocate
> > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collocate
> 
> A bit more condensed variant: these two are both derived from
> con- + loco, but have different meanings -
> 	colocated: occupying the same place
> 	collocated: sitting next to each other
> 
> In this case it's very much the former - the point of comment is that
> the fields in question share the same memory location, but we are
> guaranteed that any dentry we find in the alias list of an inode will
> have that location used for ->i_dentry.
> 
> "co-located" would probably work better there.
> 
> PS: history of that word pair is amusing.  Both are (English) past participles,
> of co-locate and collocate resp.  The former had the (Latin) prefix applied in
> English to borrowing from Latin (co-locate < locate < locatus) , the latter
> is straight borrowing (collocate < collocatus).  Incidentally, in both cases
> the borrowed form had already been a past participle (of loco and
> colloco) resp.  And colloco had the same prefix (com-/con-/co-) applied
> in Latin, with regular assimilation of -nl- to -ll-.  But at that stage
> the meaning of the verb had been closer to "put in place" than to
> "be in place", so that gave "put next to each other" instead of "share
> the place".  Shift towards "be found next to each other" happened long after
> the prefix had been applied...

(Flashback to my latin exams. The only thing that is missing is
complete confusion about nested subordinate clauses... ;))