Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Kevin, > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> Before we get any users of this function, fix the name (and comments) >> to use loose instead of lose. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> >> --- >> Applies to v2.6.39-rc4 >> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c | 6 +++--- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.h | 2 +- >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c >> index 9af0847..ec3423f 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c >> @@ -960,18 +960,18 @@ u32 pwrdm_get_context_loss_count(struct powerdomain *pwrdm) >> } >> >> /** >> - * pwrdm_can_ever_lose_context - can this powerdomain ever lose context? >> + * pwrdm_can_ever_loose_context - can this powerdomain ever loose context? > > 'lose' is correct in this case,. It's derived from the idiom 'context > loss'. more broadly, 'loose' implies a strong sense of agency on the part > of whatever is doing the 'loosing,' whereas 'lose' does not (it's the PRCM > that causes the powerdomain to lose context, not the powerdomain itself - > the powerdomain's logic/memory context is subject to the PRCM's whim) After a dictionary lookup, I guess you're right. I guess I've been spelling that wrong for a while, and it seems I'm not the only one: http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/looselose.html Thanks for the English lesson. ;) Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
