On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 03:00:20PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:31:53PM +0800, Xiaofeng Cao wrote: > > change 'sould' to 'should' > > change 'colocated' to 'collocated' > > uh. collocated is incorrect. colocated is correct. > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colocate > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collocate A bit more condensed variant: these two are both derived from con- + loco, but have different meanings - colocated: occupying the same place collocated: sitting next to each other In this case it's very much the former - the point of comment is that the fields in question share the same memory location, but we are guaranteed that any dentry we find in the alias list of an inode will have that location used for ->i_dentry. "co-located" would probably work better there. PS: history of that word pair is amusing. Both are (English) past participles, of co-locate and collocate resp. The former had the (Latin) prefix applied in English to borrowing from Latin (co-locate < locate < locatus) , the latter is straight borrowing (collocate < collocatus). Incidentally, in both cases the borrowed form had already been a past participle (of loco and colloco) resp. And colloco had the same prefix (com-/con-/co-) applied in Latin, with regular assimilation of -nl- to -ll-. But at that stage the meaning of the verb had been closer to "put in place" than to "be in place", so that gave "put next to each other" instead of "share the place". Shift towards "be found next to each other" happened long after the prefix had been applied...
