On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 04:35:34PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > 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... (Flashback to my latin exams. The only thing that is missing is complete confusion about nested subordinate clauses... ;))
