Re: [PATCH-perfbook] ordering: fix typo in QQ A.5

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:11 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 09:54:27PM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote:
> > Thank Paul for your encouragement, and thanks for adjusting the commit log ;-)
>
> Of course, if you are adding quick quizzes that would be of interest to
> the general audience, please feel free to send them along.
Thanks for your trust and encouragement. I will be very glad and honoured to add
quick quizzes for your review in the future ;-)

>
> Or maybe we removed some quick quizzes recently, who knows?  ;-)
After comparing the
https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/paulmck/perfbook/perfbook-e2.pdf
and the most recent version build from
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/perfbook.git,
I found
QQ A.3 (old version) -> QQ A.4 (recent version)
QQ A.4 (old version) -> QQ A.5 (recent version)
QQ A.5 (old version) -> QQ A.3 (recent version)

I am very sorry not to invoke a make before submit the patch (because
of my laziness).
I promise that I will build the pdf before submitting any patch from now on.

Thanks again
Zhouyi
>
> > Thanx, Zhouyi
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:34 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 02:58:30PM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote:
> > > > In QQ A.5, the pronoun "that" should be preposition "than". And the
> > > > word "imptementations" should be "implementations".
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Good eyes, queued and pushed, thank you!  (It is QQ A.3 over here,
> > > so I adjusted the commit log.)
> > >
> > >                                                         Thanx, Paul
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Hi Paul,
> > > >
> > > > I fixes some typo in QQ A.5
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Zhouyi
> > > > --
> > > >  appendix/questions/ordering.tex | 4 ++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/appendix/questions/ordering.tex b/appendix/questions/ordering.tex
> > > > index 298600f9..05217bc8 100644
> > > > --- a/appendix/questions/ordering.tex
> > > > +++ b/appendix/questions/ordering.tex
> > > > @@ -97,8 +97,8 @@ than the semantics given by the options above.
> > > >
> > > >  \QuickQuiz{
> > > >       But if fully ordered implementations cannot offer stronger
> > > > -     guarantees that the better performing and more scalable weakly
> > > > -     ordered imptementations, why bother with full ordering?
> > > > +     guarantees than the better performing and more scalable weakly
> > > > +     ordered implementations, why bother with full ordering?
> > > >  }\QuickQuizAnswer{
> > > >       Because strongly ordered implementations are sometimes
> > > >       able to provide greater consistency among sets of calls to
> > > > --
> > > > 2.25.1
> > > >



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux