[PATCH v2 0/4] debugging: Trivial fixups

[PATCH v2 0/4] debugging: Trivial fixups

[SeongJae Park]

Changes from v1
- Use 'qco{}' for quoted strings (patch 1, 2) (Akira Yokosawa)
- Explicitly distinguish section and subsection (patch 4) (Paul E. McKeneeny)

-----

This patchset contains trivial fixups for debugging/, which found while
doing Korean translation[1].

[1] https://github.com/sjp38/perfbook-ko_KR

SeongJae Park (4):
  debugging: Use \co{} for 'time' output examples
  debugging: Use \co{} and \qco{} for 'git' and 'Fixes:', respectively
  debugging: Remove unnecessary space in a sentence
  debugging/debugging: s/remainder of a section/following sections/

 debugging/debugging.tex | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH v2 1/4] debugging: Use \co{} for 'time' output examples

[SeongJae Park]

A quick quiz answer in debugging.tex is wrapping 'time' example outputs
with only `` and ''.  Use \qco{} instead.

Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
---
 debugging/debugging.tex | 16 ++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/debugging/debugging.tex b/debugging/debugging.tex
index a5324a14..fde2d446 100644
--- a/debugging/debugging.tex
+++ b/debugging/debugging.tex
@@ -257,8 +257,8 @@ validation is just job for you.
 		consumed in system mode by a CPU-bound program?
 	\item	Do you have a test case in which all three times
 		are zero?
-	\item	Do you have a test case in which the ``user'' and ``sys''
-		times sum to more than the ``real'' time?
+	\item	Do you have a test case in which the \qco{user} and \qco{sys}
+		times sum to more than the \qco{real} time?
 		(This would of course be completely legitimate in
 		a multithreaded program.)
 	\item	Do you have a set of tests cases in which one of the
@@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ validation is just job for you.
 		times uses more than ten seconds?
 	\item	Do you have a set of test cases in which one of the
 		times has non-zero minutes?
-		(For example, ``15m36.342s''.)
+		(For example, \qco{15m36.342s}.)
 	\item	Do you have a set of test cases in which one of the
 		times has a seconds value of greater than 60?
 	\item	Do you have a set of test cases in which one of the
@@ -279,21 +279,21 @@ validation is just job for you.
 		times has a positive minutes value but a negative
 		seconds value?
 	\item	Do you have a set of test cases in which one of the
-		times omits the ``m'' or the ``s''?
+		times omits the \qco{m} or the \qco{s}?
 	\item	Do you have a set of test cases in which one of the
 		times is non-numeric?
-		(For example, ``Go Fish''.)
+		(For example, \qco{Go Fish}.)
 	\item	Do you have a set of test cases in which one of the
 		lines is omitted?
-		(For example, where there is a ``real'' value and
-		a ``sys'' value, but no ``user'' value.)
+		(For example, where there is a \qco{real} value and
+		a \qco{sys} value, but no \qco{user} value.)
 	\item	Do you have a set of test cases where one of the
 		lines is duplicated?
 		Or duplicated, but with a different time value for
 		the duplicate?
 	\item	Do you have a set of test cases where a given line
 		has more than one time value?
-		(For example, ``real 0m0.132s 0m0.008s''.)
+		(For example, \qco{real 0m0.132s 0m0.008s}.)
 	\item	Do you have a set of test cases containing random
 		characters?
 	\item	In all test cases involving invalid input, did you
-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH v2 2/4] debugging: Use \co{} and \qco{} for 'git' and 'Fixes:', respectively

[SeongJae Park]

In 'debugging/', 'git' is a command and 'Fixes:' is a string in command
output, which usually enclosed via '\co{}' and '\qco{}' respectively,
but those are enclosed with '\emph{}'.  Use '\co{}' and '\qco{}'
respectively, instead for being more consistent.

Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>
---
 debugging/debugging.tex | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/debugging/debugging.tex b/debugging/debugging.tex
index fde2d446..4dfb1229 100644
--- a/debugging/debugging.tex
+++ b/debugging/debugging.tex
@@ -862,8 +862,8 @@ by the author's invalid assumptions, and who might also test the code.
 	hackers of harboring???
 }\QuickQuizAnswer{
 	Those wishing a complete answer to this question are encouraged
-	to search the Linux kernel \emph{git} repository for commits
-	containing the string ``Fixes:''.
+	to search the Linux kernel \co{git} repository for commits
+	containing the string \qco{Fixes:}.
 	There were many thousands of them just in the year 2020, including
 	fixes for the following invalid assumptions:
 
-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH v2 3/4] debugging: Remove unnecessary space in a sentence

[SeongJae Park]

Two spaces are usually used between sentences, but a sentence in
debugging is using two spaces inside a sentence.  Make it uses only one
space for consistency.

Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>
---
 debugging/debugging.tex | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/debugging/debugging.tex b/debugging/debugging.tex
index 4dfb1229..b7538620 100644
--- a/debugging/debugging.tex
+++ b/debugging/debugging.tex
@@ -2153,7 +2153,7 @@ serve four major purposes:
 	against your competitors' offerings.
 \end{enumerate}
 
-Of course,  the only completely fair framework is the intended
+Of course, the only completely fair framework is the intended
 application itself.
 So why would anyone who cared about fairness in benchmarking
 bother creating imperfect benchmarks rather than simply
-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH v2 4/4] debugging/debugging: s/remainder of a section/following sections/

[SeongJae Park]

A sectence in 'Microbenchmarking' section is mentioning the remainder of
the section will look at ways for dealing with conflicts in measurement
error advices.  Because we don't distinguish section and subsection on
text, this makes it a little confused, whether it means remainder of the
subsection, or the following subsections of the section.  Make it a bit
more clear.

Suggedsted-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>
---
 debugging/debugging.tex | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/debugging/debugging.tex b/debugging/debugging.tex
index b7538620..170bf273 100644
--- a/debugging/debugging.tex
+++ b/debugging/debugging.tex
@@ -641,8 +641,8 @@ sure to take full advantage of any existing test suites available to
 you.
 Important as test development is, we must leave further discussion of it
 to books dedicated to that topic.
-The following sections therefore discuss locating bugs in your code given that
-you already have a good test suite.
+The remainder of this section (\cref{sec:debugging:Performance Estimation})
+looks at ways of resolving this conflict.
 
 \section{Tracing}
 \label{sec:debugging:Tracing}
@@ -2302,7 +2302,7 @@ to creep in, including:
 
 The first and fourth sources of interference provide conflicting advice,
 which is one sign that we are living in the real world.
-The remainder of this section looks at ways of resolving this conflict.
+The following sections look at ways of resolving this conflict.
 
 \QuickQuiz{
 	But what about other sources of error, for example, due to
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] debugging: Use \co{} for 'time' output examples

[Akira Yokosawa]

Hi SeongJae,

I might be nit-picky, but just couldn't help.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 09:10:05 -0800, SeongJae Park wrote:
> A quick quiz answer in debugging.tex is wrapping 'time' example outputs
> with only `` and ''.  Use \qco{} instead.

In the subject, "Use \co{} for ..." should be "Use \qco{} for ...".

        Thanks, Akira

> 
> Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
> ---
>  debugging/debugging.tex | 16 ++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/debugging/debugging.tex b/debugging/debugging.tex
> index a5324a14..fde2d446 100644
> --- a/debugging/debugging.tex
> +++ b/debugging/debugging.tex
> @@ -257,8 +257,8 @@ validation is just job for you.
>  		consumed in system mode by a CPU-bound program?
>  	\item	Do you have a test case in which all three times
>  		are zero?
> -	\item	Do you have a test case in which the ``user'' and ``sys''
> -		times sum to more than the ``real'' time?
> +	\item	Do you have a test case in which the \qco{user} and \qco{sys}
> +		times sum to more than the \qco{real} time?
>  		(This would of course be completely legitimate in
>  		a multithreaded program.)
>  	\item	Do you have a set of tests cases in which one of the
> @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ validation is just job for you.
>  		times uses more than ten seconds?
>  	\item	Do you have a set of test cases in which one of the
>  		times has non-zero minutes?
> -		(For example, ``15m36.342s''.)
> +		(For example, \qco{15m36.342s}.)
>  	\item	Do you have a set of test cases in which one of the
>  		times has a seconds value of greater than 60?
>  	\item	Do you have a set of test cases in which one of the
> @@ -279,21 +279,21 @@ validation is just job for you.
>  		times has a positive minutes value but a negative
>  		seconds value?
>  	\item	Do you have a set of test cases in which one of the
> -		times omits the ``m'' or the ``s''?
> +		times omits the \qco{m} or the \qco{s}?
>  	\item	Do you have a set of test cases in which one of the
>  		times is non-numeric?
> -		(For example, ``Go Fish''.)
> +		(For example, \qco{Go Fish}.)
>  	\item	Do you have a set of test cases in which one of the
>  		lines is omitted?
> -		(For example, where there is a ``real'' value and
> -		a ``sys'' value, but no ``user'' value.)
> +		(For example, where there is a \qco{real} value and
> +		a \qco{sys} value, but no \qco{user} value.)
>  	\item	Do you have a set of test cases where one of the
>  		lines is duplicated?
>  		Or duplicated, but with a different time value for
>  		the duplicate?
>  	\item	Do you have a set of test cases where a given line
>  		has more than one time value?
> -		(For example, ``real 0m0.132s 0m0.008s''.)
> +		(For example, \qco{real 0m0.132s 0m0.008s}.)
>  	\item	Do you have a set of test cases containing random
>  		characters?
>  	\item	In all test cases involving invalid input, did you

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] debugging/debugging: s/remainder of a section/following sections/

[Akira Yokosawa]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 09:10:08 -0800, SeongJae Park wrote:
> A sectence in 'Microbenchmarking' section is mentioning the remainder of
> the section will look at ways for dealing with conflicts in measurement
> error advices.  Because we don't distinguish section and subsection on
> text, this makes it a little confused, whether it means remainder of the
> subsection, or the following subsections of the section.  Make it a bit
> more clear.
> 
> Suggedsted-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>
> ---
>  debugging/debugging.tex | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/debugging/debugging.tex b/debugging/debugging.tex
> index b7538620..170bf273 100644
> --- a/debugging/debugging.tex
> +++ b/debugging/debugging.tex
> @@ -641,8 +641,8 @@ sure to take full advantage of any existing test suites available to
>  you.
>  Important as test development is, we must leave further discussion of it
>  to books dedicated to that topic.
> -The following sections therefore discuss locating bugs in your code given that
> -you already have a good test suite.
> +The remainder of this section (\cref{sec:debugging:Performance Estimation})
> +looks at ways of resolving this conflict.

I think this hunk is misplaced. Existing text around here doesn't
have any ambiguity. In other words, "The following sections" means
Sections 11.2 through 11.7 (11.8 is a summary). 

>  
>  \section{Tracing}
>  \label{sec:debugging:Tracing}
> @@ -2302,7 +2302,7 @@ to creep in, including:
>  
>  The first and fourth sources of interference provide conflicting advice,
>  which is one sign that we are living in the real world.
> -The remainder of this section looks at ways of resolving this conflict.
> +The following sections look at ways of resolving this conflict.

To my eyes, this sentence now looks redundant as there already is an
introduction to the following subsections below QQz 11.23.

>  
>  \QuickQuiz{
>  	But what about other sources of error, for example, due to

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] debugging: Use \co{} for 'time' output examples

[SeongJae Park]

Hi Akira,

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 21:02:12 +0900 Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi SeongJae,
> 
> I might be nit-picky, but just couldn't help.
> 
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 09:10:05 -0800, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > A quick quiz answer in debugging.tex is wrapping 'time' example outputs
> > with only `` and ''.  Use \qco{} instead.
> 
> In the subject, "Use \co{} for ..." should be "Use \qco{} for ...".

You're right, thank you for letting me know this.  Will fix the subject in the
next spin.


Thanks,
SJ

[...]

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] debugging/debugging: s/remainder of a section/following sections/

[SeongJae Park]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 21:29:40 +0900 Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 09:10:08 -0800, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > A sectence in 'Microbenchmarking' section is mentioning the remainder of
> > the section will look at ways for dealing with conflicts in measurement
> > error advices.  Because we don't distinguish section and subsection on
> > text, this makes it a little confused, whether it means remainder of the
> > subsection, or the following subsections of the section.  Make it a bit
> > more clear.
> > 
> > Suggedsted-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  debugging/debugging.tex | 6 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/debugging/debugging.tex b/debugging/debugging.tex
> > index b7538620..170bf273 100644
> > --- a/debugging/debugging.tex
> > +++ b/debugging/debugging.tex
> > @@ -641,8 +641,8 @@ sure to take full advantage of any existing test suites available to
> >  you.
> >  Important as test development is, we must leave further discussion of it
> >  to books dedicated to that topic.
> > -The following sections therefore discuss locating bugs in your code given that
> > -you already have a good test suite.
> > +The remainder of this section (\cref{sec:debugging:Performance Estimation})
> > +looks at ways of resolving this conflict.
> 
> I think this hunk is misplaced. Existing text around here doesn't
> have any ambiguity. In other words, "The following sections" means
> Sections 11.2 through 11.7 (11.8 is a summary). 

Oh, you're right.  I may need more coffee, sorry.

> 
> >  
> >  \section{Tracing}
> >  \label{sec:debugging:Tracing}
> > @@ -2302,7 +2302,7 @@ to creep in, including:
> >  
> >  The first and fourth sources of interference provide conflicting advice,
> >  which is one sign that we are living in the real world.
> > -The remainder of this section looks at ways of resolving this conflict.
> > +The following sections look at ways of resolving this conflict.
> 
> To my eyes, this sentence now looks redundant as there already is an
> introduction to the following subsections below QQz 11.23.

I agree.  I will simply remove this sentence in the next spin.


Thanks,
SJ

> 
> >  
> >  \QuickQuiz{
> >  	But what about other sources of error, for example, due to