On 5/8/21 10:09 AM, Michal Suchánek wrote: > On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 08:55:11AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> Hi Mauro, >> >> On 5/8/21 7:41 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>> Em Sat, 8 May 2021 12:41:57 +0200 >>> Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@xxxxxxx> escreveu: >>> >>>> On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 11:22:05AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>>>> Em Fri, 7 May 2021 08:39:24 +0200 >>>>> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: >>>>> >>>>>> Em Thu, 6 May 2021 14:21:01 -0700 >>>>>> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I'll prepare a patch fixing it. Some care should be taken, however, as >>>>>> it has two places where UTF-8 chars should be used[2]. >>>>> >>>>> Ok, I did a small script in order to check what special chars we >>>>> currently have (next-20210507) at Documentation/ excluding the >>>>> translations. >>>>> >>>>> Based on my script results, we have those groups: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Latin accented characters: >>>>> - U+00c7 (LATIN CAPITAL LETTER C WITH CEDILLA) (Ç) >>>>> - U+00df (LATIN SMALL LETTER SHARP S) (ß) >>>>> - U+00e1 (LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH ACUTE) (á) >>>>> - U+00e4 (LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH DIAERESIS) (ä) >>>>> - U+00e6 (LATIN SMALL LETTER AE) (æ) >>>>> - U+00e7 (LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH CEDILLA) (ç) >>>>> - U+00e9 (LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH ACUTE) (é) >>>>> - U+00ea (LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH CIRCUMFLEX) (ê) >>>>> - U+00eb (LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH DIAERESIS) (ë) >>>>> - U+00f3 (LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH ACUTE) (ó) >>>>> - U+00f4 (LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH CIRCUMFLEX) (ô) >>>>> - U+00f6 (LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH DIAERESIS) (ö) >>>>> - U+00f8 (LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH STROKE) (ø) >>>>> - U+00fc (LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH DIAERESIS) (ü) >>>>> - U+011f (LATIN SMALL LETTER G WITH BREVE) (ğ) >>>>> - U+0142 (LATIN SMALL LETTER L WITH STROKE) (ł) >>>>> >>>>> 2. symbols: >>>>> - U+00a9 (COPYRIGHT SIGN) (©) >>>>> - U+2122 (TRADE MARK SIGN) (™) >>>>> - U+00ae (REGISTERED SIGN) (®) >>>>> - U+00b0 (DEGREE SIGN) (°) >>>>> - U+00b1 (PLUS-MINUS SIGN) (±) >>>>> - U+00b2 (SUPERSCRIPT TWO) (²) >>>>> - U+00b5 (MICRO SIGN) (µ) >>>>> - U+00bd (VULGAR FRACTION ONE HALF) (½) >>>>> - U+2026 (HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS) (…) >>>>> >>>>> 3. arrows: >>>>> - U+2191 (UPWARDS ARROW) (↑) >>>>> - U+2192 (RIGHTWARDS ARROW) (→) >>>>> - U+2193 (DOWNWARDS ARROW) (↓) >>>>> - U+2b0d (UP DOWN BLACK ARROW) (⬍) >>>>> >>>>> 4. box drawings: >>>>> - U+2500 (BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT HORIZONTAL) (─) >>>>> - U+2502 (BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT VERTICAL) (│) >>>>> - U+2514 (BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT UP AND RIGHT) (└) >>>>> - U+251c (BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT VERTICAL AND RIGHT) (├) >>>>> >>>>> 5. math symbols: >>>>> - U+00b7 (MIDDLE DOT) (·) >>>>> - U+00d7 (MULTIPLICATION SIGN) (×) >>>>> - U+2212 (MINUS SIGN) (−) >>>>> - U+2217 (ASTERISK OPERATOR) (∗) >>>>> - U+223c (TILDE OPERATOR) (∼) >>>>> - U+2264 (LESS-THAN OR EQUAL TO) (≤) >>>>> - U+2265 (GREATER-THAN OR EQUAL TO) (≥) >>>>> - U+27e8 (MATHEMATICAL LEFT ANGLE BRACKET) (⟨) >>>>> - U+27e9 (MATHEMATICAL RIGHT ANGLE BRACKET) (⟩) >>>>> - U+00ac (NOT SIGN) (¬) >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> Use of ¬ is also very dubious in documentation (in fonts it is understandable): >>>> Documentation/ABI/obsolete/sysfs-kernel-fadump_registered:This ABI is renamed and moved to a new location /sys/kernel/fadump/registered.¬ >>>> Documentation/ABI/obsolete/sysfs-kernel-fadump_release_mem:This ABI is renamed and moved to a new location /sys/kernel/fadump/release_mem.¬ >>> >>> >>>> Documentation/powerpc/transactional_memory.rst: if (MSR 29:31 ¬ = 0b010 | SRR1 29:31 ¬ = 0b000) then >>> >>> Yeah, this should probably be better written as: >>> >>> if (MSR 29:31 == 0b010 | SRR1 29:31 == 0b000) then >> >> If the original with the 'NOT SIGN' was correct, then this >> version can't be correct. Or do you suspect that the "original" >> was corrupted somehow? > > This does not make sense however you look at it. Using | between logical > expressions ... To my eyes/brain, it looks like classic (IBM) symbolic logic notation. In that context, I don't see anything wrong with it. > It sounds like it is some pseudocode in no language in particular so > it's hard to tell what it actually means and the document does not have > enough context to be able to tell. I suppose there is some comment > somewhere in the kernel code that would clarify this - at least what the > bit patterns mean. Yeah, I have been looking thru the arch/powerpc/ source code for this, but I haven't found it yet. -- ~Randy
