PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages

PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages

[Sean M. Burke]

The English interjection "OK" is misspelled as "Ok" in a dozen
messages in the Linux kernel.  The following patch corrects
those typos from "Ok" to "OK".  It affects no comments or
symbol-names -- and it stops me wanting to gnaw my fingers off every
time I see "Ok, booting the kernel."!

("Okay" is an acceptable variant spelling of "OK".  I chose "OK" over
"Okay" for sake of concision.)

(I also fix three incidental nearby typoes in
drivers/media/video/bttv-driver.c -- see at the end.)


Signed-off-by: Sean M. Burke <sburke@cpan.org>


diff -uprN --exclude='*~*' linux-2.6.9.orig/arch/alpha/boot/bootp.c linux-2.6.9/arch/alpha/boot/bootp.c
--- linux-2.6.9.orig/arch/alpha/boot/bootp.c	2004-10-18 13:55:06.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.9/arch/alpha/boot/bootp.c	2005-05-28 01:29:44.000000000 -0800
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ pal_init(void)
  		(INIT_HWRPB->processor_offset + (unsigned long) INIT_HWRPB);
  	rev = percpu->pal_revision = percpu->palcode_avail[2];

-	srm_printk("Ok (rev %lx)\n", rev);
+	srm_printk("OK (rev %lx)\n", rev);

  	tbia(); /* do it directly in case we are SMP */
  }
diff -uprN --exclude='*~*' linux-2.6.9.orig/arch/alpha/boot/main.c linux-2.6.9/arch/alpha/boot/main.c
--- linux-2.6.9.orig/arch/alpha/boot/main.c	2004-10-18 13:55:35.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.9/arch/alpha/boot/main.c	2005-05-28 01:29:33.000000000 -0800
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ pal_init(void)
  		(INIT_HWRPB->processor_offset + (unsigned long) INIT_HWRPB);
  	rev = percpu->pal_revision = percpu->palcode_avail[2];

-	srm_printk("Ok (rev %lx)\n", rev);
+	srm_printk("OK (rev %lx)\n", rev);

  	tbia(); /* do it directly in case we are SMP */
  }
@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ void start_kernel(void)
  	envval[nbytes] = '\0';
  	strcpy((char*)ZERO_PGE, envval);

-	srm_printk(" Ok\nNow booting the kernel\n");
+	srm_printk(" OK\nNow booting the kernel\n");
  	runkernel();
  	for (i = 0 ; i < 0x100000000 ; i++)
  		/* nothing */;
diff -uprN --exclude='*~*' linux-2.6.9.orig/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c linux-2.6.9/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c
--- linux-2.6.9.orig/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c	2004-10-18 13:54:32.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.9/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c	2005-05-28 01:27:54.000000000 -0800
@@ -376,7 +376,7 @@ asmlinkage int decompress_kernel(struct
  	makecrc();
  	putstr("Uncompressing Linux... ");
  	gunzip();
-	putstr("Ok, booting the kernel.\n");
+	putstr("OK, booting the kernel.\n");
  	if (high_loaded) close_output_buffer_if_we_run_high(mv);
  	return high_loaded;
  }
diff -uprN --exclude='*~*' linux-2.6.9.orig/arch/i386/mm/init.c linux-2.6.9/arch/i386/mm/init.c
--- linux-2.6.9.orig/arch/i386/mm/init.c	2004-10-18 13:54:54.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.9/arch/i386/mm/init.c	2005-05-28 02:14:18.000000000 -0800
@@ -541,7 +541,7 @@ void __init test_wp_bit(void)
  		panic("This kernel doesn't support CPU's with broken WP. Recompile it for a 386!");
  #endif
  	} else {
-		printk("Ok.\n");
+		printk("OK.\n");
  	}
  }

diff -uprN --exclude='*~*' linux-2.6.9.orig/arch/m32r/boot/compressed/misc.c linux-2.6.9/arch/m32r/boot/compressed/misc.c
--- linux-2.6.9.orig/arch/m32r/boot/compressed/misc.c	2004-10-18 13:53:22.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.9/arch/m32r/boot/compressed/misc.c	2005-05-28 01:29:03.000000000 -0800
@@ -218,6 +218,6 @@ long decompress_kernel(void)
  	makecrc();
  	puts("Uncompressing Linux... ");
  	gunzip();
-	puts("Ok, booting the kernel.\n");
+	puts("OK, booting the kernel.\n");
  	return bytes_out;
  }
diff -uprN --exclude='*~*' linux-2.6.9.orig/arch/sh/boot/compressed/misc.c linux-2.6.9/arch/sh/boot/compressed/misc.c
--- linux-2.6.9.orig/arch/sh/boot/compressed/misc.c	2004-10-18 13:53:43.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.9/arch/sh/boot/compressed/misc.c	2005-05-28 01:28:27.000000000 -0800
@@ -236,5 +236,5 @@ void decompress_kernel(void)
  	makecrc();
  	puts("Uncompressing Linux... ");
  	gunzip();
-	puts("Ok, booting the kernel.\n");
+	puts("OK, booting the kernel.\n");
  }
diff -uprN --exclude='*~*' linux-2.6.9.orig/arch/sh64/boot/compressed/misc.c linux-2.6.9/arch/sh64/boot/compressed/misc.c
--- linux-2.6.9.orig/arch/sh64/boot/compressed/misc.c	2004-10-18 13:53:45.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.9/arch/sh64/boot/compressed/misc.c	2005-05-28 01:28:42.000000000 -0800
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ void decompress_kernel(void)
  	}
  #endif

-	puts("Ok, booting the kernel.\n");
+	puts("OK, booting the kernel.\n");

  	cache_control(CACHE_DISABLE);
  }
diff -uprN --exclude='*~*' linux-2.6.9.orig/drivers/base/power/shutdown.c linux-2.6.9/drivers/base/power/shutdown.c
--- linux-2.6.9.orig/drivers/base/power/shutdown.c	2004-10-18 13:54:37.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.9/drivers/base/power/shutdown.c	2005-05-28 01:34:58.000000000 -0800
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ void device_shutdown(void)
  	list_for_each_entry_reverse(dev, &devices_subsys.kset.list, kobj.entry) {
  		pr_debug("shutting down %s: ", dev->bus_id);
  		if (dev->driver && dev->driver->shutdown) {
-			pr_debug("Ok\n");
+			pr_debug("OK\n");
  			dev->driver->shutdown(dev);
  		} else
  			pr_debug("Ignored.\n");
diff -uprN --exclude='*~*' linux-2.6.9.orig/drivers/media/video/bttv-driver.c linux-2.6.9/drivers/media/video/bttv-driver.c
--- linux-2.6.9.orig/drivers/media/video/bttv-driver.c	2004-10-18 13:54:54.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.9/drivers/media/video/bttv-driver.c	2005-05-28 01:32:39.000000000 -0800
@@ -3228,14 +3228,14 @@ static void bttv_irq_debug_low_latency(s
  	       (unsigned long)rc);

  	if (0 == (btread(BT848_DSTATUS) & BT848_DSTATUS_HLOC)) {
-		printk("bttv%d: Oh, there (temporarely?) is no input signal. "
-		       "Ok, then this is harmless, don't worry ;)\n",
+		printk("bttv%d: Oh, there (temporarily?) is no input signal. "
+		       "OK, then this is harmless, don't worry ;)\n",
  		       btv->c.nr);
  		return;
  	}
  	printk("bttv%d: Uhm. Looks like we have unusual high IRQ latencies.\n",
  	       btv->c.nr);
-	printk("bttv%d: Lets try to catch the culpit red-handed ...\n",
+	printk("bttv%d: Let's try to catch the culprit red-handed ...\n",
  	       btv->c.nr);
  	dump_stack();
  }

Re: PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages

[David Woodhouse]

On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 03:13 -0800, Sean M. Burke wrote:
> The English interjection "OK" is misspelled as "Ok" in a dozen
> messages in the Linux kernel.  The following patch corrects
> those typos from "Ok" to "OK".  It affects no comments or
> symbol-names -- and it stops me wanting to gnaw my fingers off every
> time I see "Ok, booting the kernel."!

If you're going to do that, you might as well fix 'Uncompressing Linux'
to 'Decompressing Linux' too, and stop _me_ from being annoyed as well.

There's another error within the context of your patch too.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages

[Måns Rullgård]

There are another couple of mistakes near your fixes.

>   		panic("This kernel doesn't support CPU's with broken WP. Recompile it for a 386!");

"CPU's" should be "CPUs", without the apostrophe.

>   	printk("bttv%d: Uhm. Looks like we have unusual high IRQ latencies.\n",

"unusually high" rings better in my ears.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com

Re: PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages

[Matthias-Christian Ott]

Måns Rullgård wrote:
> [..]
> "unusually high" rings better in my ears.
It's an adjective not an adverb.

Matthias-Christian Ott

Re: PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages

[Måns Rullgård]

Matthias-Christian Ott <matthias.christian@tiscali.de> writes:

> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> [..]
>> "unusually high" rings better in my ears.
> It's an adjective not an adverb.

It depends on how the sentence should be interpreted.  Is it "unusual
(high IRQ latencies)", or "(unusually high) IRQ latencies"?

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com

Re: PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages

[Måns Rullgård]

<cutaway@bellsouth.net> writes:

> "Sean M. Burke" <sburke@cpan.org> wrote:
>
>> The English interjection "OK" is misspelled as "Ok" in a dozen
>> messages in the Linux kernel.  The following patch corrects
>> those typos from "Ok" to "OK".  It affects no comments or
>> symbol-names -- and it stops me wanting to gnaw my fingers off every
>> time I see "Ok, booting the kernel."!
>
> That's not the most annoying IMO - see how many instances of something like
> this you'll sprinkled around:
>
> printk("The PukeMaster is %sabled.\n", SomeFlag ? "dis" : "en");
>
> If a NLS translator isn't a C programmer, they'll screw it up frequently.

That's true, but the Linux kernel isn't subject to NLS translations.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com

Re: PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages

[Pozsár Balázs]

On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 12:29:52PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 03:13 -0800, Sean M. Burke wrote:
> > The English interjection "OK" is misspelled as "Ok" in a dozen
> > messages in the Linux kernel.  The following patch corrects
> > those typos from "Ok" to "OK".  It affects no comments or
> > symbol-names -- and it stops me wanting to gnaw my fingers off every
> > time I see "Ok, booting the kernel."!
> 
> If you're going to do that, you might as well fix 'Uncompressing Linux'
> to 'Decompressing Linux' too, and stop _me_ from being annoyed as well.

While we are at it, what about changing this string to something 
language-neutral, like this:

diff -Naurdp a/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c b/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c
--- a/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c	2004-04-04 05:37:23.000000000 +0200
+++ b/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c	2004-05-09 23:18:06.000000000 +0200
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
  */
 
 #include <linux/linkage.h>
+#include <linux/version.h>
 #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
 #include <linux/tty.h>
 #include <video/edid.h>
@@ -373,9 +374,9 @@ asmlinkage int decompress_kernel(struct 
 	else setup_output_buffer_if_we_run_high(mv);
 
 	makecrc();
-	putstr("Uncompressing Linux... ");
+	putstr("Linux " UTS_RELEASE);
 	gunzip();
-	putstr("Ok, booting the kernel.\n");
+	putstr("\n");
 	if (high_loaded) close_output_buffer_if_we_run_high(mv);
 	return high_loaded;
 }





-- 
pozsy

Re: PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages

[cutaway]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sean M. Burke" <sburke@cpan.org>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <trivial@rustcorp.com.au>
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 07:13
Subject: PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages


> The English interjection "OK" is misspelled as "Ok" in a dozen
> messages in the Linux kernel.  The following patch corrects
> those typos from "Ok" to "OK".  It affects no comments or
> symbol-names -- and it stops me wanting to gnaw my fingers off every
> time I see "Ok, booting the kernel."!

That's not the most annoying IMO - see how many instances of something like
this you'll sprinkled around:

printk("The PukeMaster is %sabled.\n", SomeFlag ? "dis" : "en");

If a NLS translator isn't a C programmer, they'll screw it up frequently.

Re: PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages

[Alistair John Strachan]

On Saturday 28 May 2005 13:19, you wrote:
> Matthias-Christian Ott <matthias.christian@tiscali.de> writes:
> > Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> [..]
> >> "unusually high" rings better in my ears.
> >
> > It's an adjective not an adverb.
>
> It depends on how the sentence should be interpreted.  Is it "unusual
> (high IRQ latencies)", or "(unusually high) IRQ latencies"?

You're right, it's "(unusually high) IRQ latencies". What we have now is 
grammatically incorrect.

-- 
Cheers,
Alistair.

personal:   alistair()devzero!co!uk
university: s0348365()sms!ed!ac!uk
student:    CS/CSim Undergraduate
contact:    1F2 55 South Clerk Street,
            Edinburgh. EH8 9PP.

Re: PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages

[Lee Revell]

On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 09:14 -0400, cutaway@bellsouth.net wrote:
> printk("The PukeMaster is %sabled.\n", SomeFlag ? "dis" : "en");
> 
> If a NLS translator isn't a C programmer, they'll screw it up frequently.

Then you need a better translator.

Lee

Re: PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages

[cutaway]

Worked many large scale multiple languages translation projects?  I have.
You take what you can get and make it as easy on them as possible to
minimize your own grief.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lee Revell" <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: <cutaway@bellsouth.net>
Cc: "Sean M. Burke" <sburke@cpan.org>; <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>;
<trivial@rustcorp.com.au>
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 17:02
Subject: Re: PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages


> On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 09:14 -0400, cutaway@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > printk("The PukeMaster is %sabled.\n", SomeFlag ? "dis" : "en");
> >
> > If a NLS translator isn't a C programmer, they'll screw it up
frequently.
>
> Then you need a better translator.
>
> Lee
>
>

Re: PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages

[Tim Bird]

� wrote:

>> While we are at it, what about changing this string to something
>> language-neutral, like this:
>>
>> diff -Naurdp a/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c b/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c
>> --- a/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c	2004-04-04 05:37:23.000000000 +0200
>> +++ b/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c	2004-05-09 23:18:06.000000000 +0200
>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>>   */
>>
>>  #include <linux/linkage.h>
>> +#include <linux/version.h>
>>  #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
>>  #include <linux/tty.h>
>>  #include <video/edid.h>
>> @@ -373,9 +374,9 @@ asmlinkage int decompress_kernel(struct
>>  	else setup_output_buffer_if_we_run_high(mv);
>>
>>  	makecrc();
>> -	putstr("Uncompressing Linux... ");
>> +	putstr("Linux " UTS_RELEASE);
>>  	gunzip();
>> -	putstr("Ok, booting the kernel.\n");
>> +	putstr("\n");
>>  	if (high_loaded) close_output_buffer_if_we_run_high(mv);
>>  	return high_loaded;
>>  }


Language neutrality is not a goal for kernel messages,
that I'm aware of.  I disagree with this change because
it yields a net reduction in understanding what's going
on during booting.

=============================
Tim Bird
Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum
Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Electronics
=============================

Re: PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages

[Pozsár Balázs]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 09:30:41AM -0700, Tim Bird wrote:
> >> While we are at it, what about changing this string to something
> >> language-neutral, like this:
> >>
> >> diff -Naurdp a/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c b/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c
> >> --- a/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c	2004-04-04 05:37:23.000000000 +0200
> >> +++ b/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c	2004-05-09 23:18:06.000000000 +0200
> >> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> >>   */
> >>
> >>  #include <linux/linkage.h>
> >> +#include <linux/version.h>
> >>  #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> >>  #include <linux/tty.h>
> >>  #include <video/edid.h>
> >> @@ -373,9 +374,9 @@ asmlinkage int decompress_kernel(struct
> >>  	else setup_output_buffer_if_we_run_high(mv);
> >>
> >>  	makecrc();
> >> -	putstr("Uncompressing Linux... ");
> >> +	putstr("Linux " UTS_RELEASE);
> >>  	gunzip();
> >> -	putstr("Ok, booting the kernel.\n");
> >> +	putstr("\n");
> >>  	if (high_loaded) close_output_buffer_if_we_run_high(mv);
> >>  	return high_loaded;
> >>  }
> 
> 
> Language neutrality is not a goal for kernel messages,
> that I'm aware of.

Of course this is true, but I think this very one is an exception: this 
is the only one seen when booting with the "quiet" kernel option or 
using some shiny bootlogo patches, both of which is common practice 
among distribution-shipped kernels.


> I disagree with this change because
> it yields a net reduction in understanding what's going
> on during booting.

No, it does not yields any reduction. Only the strings itself are 
changed, not the time they are printed.
Besides, nobody is interested that actually an uncompress step is in 
progress, that just works. And, btw if it fails (the gunzip), it prints 
an error message anyway iirc.


-- 
pozsy

Re: PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages

[Tim Bird]

> >>-	putstr("Uncompressing Linux... ");
> >> +	putstr("Linux " UTS_RELEASE);
> >>  	gunzip();
> >> -	putstr("Ok, booting the kernel.\n");
> >> +	putstr("\n");
> >>

� wrote:
>>Language neutrality is not a goal for kernel messages,
>>that I'm aware of.
> 
> Of course this is true, but I think this very one is an exception: this 
> is the only one seen when booting with the "quiet" kernel option or 
> using some shiny bootlogo patches, both of which is common practice 
> among distribution-shipped kernels.
> 
OK, I understand why this one might worth different
consideration.

> 
>>I disagree with this change because
>>it yields a net reduction in understanding what's going
>>on during booting.
> 
> No, it does not yields any reduction. Only the strings itself are 
> changed, not the time they are printed.
This is only true if the words themselves have no meaning or utility.
They do.

> Besides, nobody is interested that actually an uncompress step is in 
> progress, that just works.
This is not true, a developer working on a new board support package
cares whether we're in the decompress step or in the kernel booting step.

New developers unfamiliar with the kernel booting sequence will have
to find out where this message is coming from, when things fail.
Without a unique string to search for, this becomes quite difficult
to find.

In my field, I work with a LOT of developers who are not deeply
familiar with the kernel, but still face these bootup messages.

> And, btw if it fails (the gunzip), it prints 
> an error message anyway iirc.

I'm not sure what happens on gunzip failure, but
I see kernel boot failures quite often during
board bringup, and it's nice to know if you've
passed the decompression phase, etc.  The messages
you propose are much less instructive for the
developer.

However, I will grant that we're not trying to
optimize for the developer, but rather should
be optimizing for the user.  But if we can
do something that is suitable to both, I would
prefer it.  Could we put just a little more
wording back in?

 -- Tim

=============================
Tim Bird
Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum
Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Electronics
=============================

Re: PATCH: "Ok" -> "OK" in messages

[Alan Cox]

On Iau, 2005-06-23 at 17:30, Tim Bird wrote:
> Language neutrality is not a goal for kernel messages,
> that I'm aware of.  I disagree with this change because
> it yields a net reduction in understanding what's going
> on during booting.

Just change the "Uncompressing" to "Decompressing". The other proposal
of including the version is a good one as is correcting the "Ok".
Whatever occurs porting the code into English can only be a good thing.