Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:18:24 -0300
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] char/tty_io: fix legacy pty name when more than 256
 pty devices are requested
Message-ID: <20090910091824.2ae86a7f@caramujo.chehab.org>
In-Reply-To: <4AA88FAB.2090002@zytor.com>
References: <20090908144942.76ddf0e7@caramujo.chehab.org>
	<4AA6DF50.3030603@zytor.com>
	<20090908203323.486c129c@caramujo.chehab.org>
	<4AA6F63F.7090009@zytor.com>
	<20090908235441.04549a29@caramujo.chehab.org>
	<4AA73309.8030302@zytor.com>
	<20090910011320.3a6ec797@caramujo.chehab.org>
	<4AA88FAB.2090002@zytor.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1936
Lines: 52

Em Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:33:31 -0700
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> escreveu:

> On 09/09/2009 09:13 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:46:01 -0700
> > "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> escreveu:
> > 
> >> Actually it's [7:4][*:8][3:0].  It was the easiest way to get backwards
> >> compatibility, since it allowed for the use of s[n]printf().  It's not
> >> by any means the only possibility, but I think the easiest one to describe.
> >>
> >>> From one side, I liked the idea of not having any arbitrary maximum limit, but
> >>> from other side, It seems easier to implement than to describe it in English,
> >>> at devices.txt. Maybe the solution is to explain it by examples.
> >>>
> >>> Also, if we look at the current device designation, we already have some rule
> >>> changes. 
> >>
> >> That doesn't mean it's a good idea.
> > 
> > True. Given the idea of using an unique algorithm to populate the namespace, I agree
> > that your proposal is a good alternative.
> > 
> > I just sent the patch with the feedbacks I had. I tried to do my best to describe it in
> > simple yet precise terms at devices.txt.
> > 
> 
> Looks good, except:
> 
> 	s/nibble/nybble/
> 
> "nybble" is to "nibble" what "byte" is to "bite".

Well, on all books I studied, this were written as "nibble" meaning half byte.
A quick research at the Internet shows that both terms are accepted: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibble
http://freeware-reviews.blogspot.com/2005/10/nibble-or-nybble.html
http://www.techterms.com/definition/nybble
http://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?nybble

Yet, nibble results in much more matches. So, IMO, we should keep using nibble.


Cheers,
Mauro
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/