Documentation (mm & i2c) questions (doubled words)

Documentation (mm & i2c) questions (doubled words)

[Randy Dunlap]

for MM:

in Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numaperf.rst:
line 132-133:

  If that directory is not present, the system either does not not provide
  a memory-side cache, or that information is not accessible to the kernel.

Is the double negative done on purpose or is it a typo/mistake?


for I2C:

in Documentation/i2c/upgrading-clients.rst:
line 10-11:

  This guide outlines how to alter existing Linux 2.6 client drivers from
  the old to the new new binding methods.
                 ^^^^^^^

Is this like "really new" or newer than new?  or just a simple mistake?


thanks.

-- 
~Randy

Re: Documentation (mm & i2c) questions (doubled words)

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 380 bytes --]


> in Documentation/i2c/upgrading-clients.rst:
> line 10-11:
> 
>   This guide outlines how to alter existing Linux 2.6 client drivers from
>   the old to the new new binding methods.
>                  ^^^^^^^
> 
> Is this like "really new" or newer than new?  or just a simple mistake?

It's a mistake. I assume you want to send the patch? Thanks for taking
care.


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Documentation (mm & i2c) questions (doubled words)

[Mike Rapoport]

On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 10:12:06AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 
> for MM:
> 
> in Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numaperf.rst:
> line 132-133:
> 
>   If that directory is not present, the system either does not not provide
>   a memory-side cache, or that information is not accessible to the kernel.
> 
> Is the double negative done on purpose or is it a typo/mistake?

It's a typo.
 
> for I2C:
> 
> in Documentation/i2c/upgrading-clients.rst:
> line 10-11:
> 
>   This guide outlines how to alter existing Linux 2.6 client drivers from
>   the old to the new new binding methods.
>                  ^^^^^^^
> 
> Is this like "really new" or newer than new?  or just a simple mistake?
> 
> 
> thanks.
> 
> -- 
> ~Randy
> 
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.