| Message ID | 496a3c51.09876e0a.03fe.7e80@mx.google.com |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
> @@ -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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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.
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com> 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 netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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 <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com> > 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 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/ > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: joe tian <joe.tian.kernel@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:36:51 +0800 > 2009/1/12 Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>: > >> @@ -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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
David Miller wrote: > From: joe tian <joe.tian.kernel@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:36:51 +0800 > >> 2009/1/12 Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>: >>>> @@ -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. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
David Miller a écrit : > From: joe tian <joe.tian.kernel@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:36:51 +0800 > >> 2009/1/12 Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>: >>>> @@ -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 :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Eric Dumazet wrote: > David Miller a écrit : > >> From: joe tian <joe.tian.kernel@gmail.com> >> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:36:51 +0800 >> >> >>> 2009/1/12 Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>: >>> >>>>> @@ -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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> "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: trivial@kernel.org L: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org T: git kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jikos/trivial.git S: Maintained -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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!" -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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.
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 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 <rdunlap@xenotime.net> // :) ~Randy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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
Signed-off-by: Qinghuang Feng <qhfeng.kernel@gmail.com> --- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html