[PATCH] NET: fix wrong English expression in comments

Signed-off-by: Qinghuang Feng <redacted>
---

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

They are the same meaning...

 	 */
 	struct sock_common	__tw_common;
 #define tw_family		__tw_common.skc_family

On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 09:05 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:

quoted

@@ -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.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

From: Ben Hutchings <redacted>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:39:18 +0000

On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 09:05 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:

quoted

quoted

@@ -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. :-)

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 [off-list ref] wrote:

From: Ben Hutchings <redacted>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:39:18 +0000

quoted

On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 09:05 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:

quoted

quoted

@@ -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/

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.

"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

Alan Cox wrote:

quoted

"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!"