On Fri, 8 May 2026 11:15:28 -0600 Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5/8/26 10:37, Adrien Reynard wrote: > > Missing commit log in all your patches - I don't patch 1/5 in > my Inbox. > > > Signed-off-by: Adrien Reynard <[email protected]> > > --- > > Documentation/RCU/rcu.rst | 2 +- > > Documentation/driver-api/driver-model/overview.rst | 2 +- > > Documentation/filesystems/netfs_library.rst | 2 +- > > Documentation/trace/histogram-design.rst | 2 +- > > Documentation/trace/histogram.rst | 2 +- > > 5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcu.rst b/Documentation/RCU/rcu.rst > > index bf6617b330a7..320ad3292b75 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/RCU/rcu.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcu.rst > > @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Frequently Asked Questions > > Just as with spinlocks, RCU readers are not permitted to > > block, switch to user-mode execution, or enter the idle loop. > > Therefore, as soon as a CPU is seen passing through any of these > > - three states, we know that that CPU has exited any previous RCU > > + three states, we know that CPU has exited any previous RCU > > The original intent might have been to say, "that cpu", so adding > the missing comma after the first "that" or change "that" to "the" > would make sense. ... I don't think adding a comma would be correct. The clause splits as 'we know that' 'that CPU' and the repeated 'that' is absolutely correct. Maybe 'that CPU' could be replaced by 'it'; but it can be difficult to work out what back references like 'it' refer to. You can re-order it, as (say): Therefore we know that as soon as a CPU is seen passing through any of these three states it has exited any previous RCU read-side critical sections. But just because some grammar book says you shouldn't have repeated words doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. The sign writer was doing a new sign for the 'Pig and Whistle'. Unfortunately the gaps between Pig and and and and and Whistle ended up visibly different. -- David
