spelling fix in /proc: /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/default/temp_prefered_lft

RFC PATCH In review Benoit Boissinot 4 participants 7 messages Mar 19, 2008 – Mar 20, 2008

Subsystems (4)

Networking Network drivers IPv4/IPv6 Proc sysctl

lore

Share & tools

lore

Benoit Boissinot

author

2008-03-19 20:42 UTC #0 lore raw

RFC PATCH 1/1 spelling fix in /proc: /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/default/temp_prefered_lft

Is there a way to fix a bad spelling in /proc ?

Here is a patch to fix all the spelling error (prefered -> preferred) in the ipv6 code. I didn't change the /proc name but everything else is changed.
Currently you can found both spelling in the ipv6 code.
Is it ok ?

regards,

Benoit

include/linux/if_addr.h +1 -1

diff -r ef957e3033e5 include/linux/if_addr.h
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@
 
 struct ifa_cacheinfo
 {
-	__u32	ifa_prefered;
+	__u32	ifa_preferred;
 	__u32	ifa_valid;
 	__u32	cstamp; /* created timestamp, hundredths of seconds */
 	__u32	tstamp; /* updated timestamp, hundredths of seconds */

include/linux/ipv6.h +2 -2

diff -r ef957e3033e5 include/linux/ipv6.h
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@
 #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_PRIVACY
 	__s32		use_tempaddr;
 	__s32		temp_valid_lft;
-	__s32		temp_prefered_lft;
+	__s32		temp_preferred_lft;
 	__s32		regen_max_retry;
 	__s32		max_desync_factor;
 #endif

@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@
 	DEVCONF_RTR_SOLICIT_DELAY,
 	DEVCONF_USE_TEMPADDR,
 	DEVCONF_TEMP_VALID_LFT,
-	DEVCONF_TEMP_PREFERED_LFT,
+	DEVCONF_TEMP_PREFERRED_LFT,
 	DEVCONF_REGEN_MAX_RETRY,
 	DEVCONF_MAX_DESYNC_FACTOR,
 	DEVCONF_MAX_ADDRESSES,

include/linux/sysctl.h +1 -1

diff -r ef957e3033e5 include/linux/sysctl.h
@@ -566,7 +566,7 @@
 	NET_IPV6_RTR_SOLICIT_DELAY=10,
 	NET_IPV6_USE_TEMPADDR=11,
 	NET_IPV6_TEMP_VALID_LFT=12,
-	NET_IPV6_TEMP_PREFERED_LFT=13,
+	NET_IPV6_TEMP_PREFERRED_LFT=13,
 	NET_IPV6_REGEN_MAX_RETRY=14,
 	NET_IPV6_MAX_DESYNC_FACTOR=15,
 	NET_IPV6_MAX_ADDRESSES=16,

include/net/addrconf.h +1 -1

diff -r ef957e3033e5 include/net/addrconf.h
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
 #error "Please fix <asm/byteorder.h>"
 #endif
 	__be32			valid;
-	__be32			prefered;
+	__be32			preferred;
 	__be32			reserved2;
 
 	struct in6_addr		prefix;

include/net/if_inet6.h +1 -1

diff -r ef957e3033e5 include/net/if_inet6.h
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@
 	__u32			prefix_len;
 	
 	__u32			valid_lft;
-	__u32			prefered_lft;
+	__u32			preferred_lft;
 	unsigned long		cstamp;	/* created timestamp */
 	unsigned long		tstamp; /* updated timestamp */
 	atomic_t		refcnt;

kernel/sysctl_check.c +1 -1

diff -r ef957e3033e5 kernel/sysctl_check.c
@@ -482,7 +482,7 @@
 	{ NET_IPV6_RTR_SOLICIT_DELAY,		"router_solicitation_delay" },
 	{ NET_IPV6_USE_TEMPADDR,		"use_tempaddr" },
 	{ NET_IPV6_TEMP_VALID_LFT,		"temp_valid_lft" },
-	{ NET_IPV6_TEMP_PREFERED_LFT,		"temp_prefered_lft" },
+	{ NET_IPV6_TEMP_PREFERRED_LFT,		"temp_prefered_lft" },
 	{ NET_IPV6_REGEN_MAX_RETRY,		"regen_max_retry" },
 	{ NET_IPV6_MAX_DESYNC_FACTOR,		"max_desync_factor" },
 	{ NET_IPV6_MAX_ADDRESSES,		"max_addresses" },

net/ipv6/addrconf.c +55 ~~-55~~

278 lines not on this page · raw message

Signature · 1 line

:wq

David Miller

maintainer

2008-03-19 20:51 UTC #1 lore raw

From: Benoit Boissinot <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:42:27 +0100

Quoted 7 lines

Is there a way to fix a bad spelling in /proc ?
Here is a patch to fix all the spelling error (prefered -> preferred) in the ipv6 code. I didn't change the /proc name but everything else is changed.
Currently you can found both spelling in the ipv6 code.
Is it ok ?

I think this doesn't add any value.

If the procfs file name has to remain the same, which it does, changing variable and macro names to be different will only cause merge conflicts and pain yet have no redeeming value.

Rick Jones

2008-03-19 23:17 UTC #2 lore raw

Quoted 13 lines · David Miller

From: Benoit Boissinot <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:42:27 +0100
Quoted 7 lines
Is there a way to fix a bad spelling in /proc ?
Here is a patch to fix all the spelling error (prefered -> preferred) in the ipv6 code. I didn't change the /proc name but everything else is changed.
Currently you can found both spelling in the ipv6 code.
Is it ok ?

Quoted 5 lines

I think this doesn't add any value.
If the procfs file name has to remain the same, which it does, changing variable and macro names to be different will only cause merge conflicts and pain yet have no redeeming value.

I've not split many hairs today so I'll ask - is there _no_ way to migrate a name in /proc et al? While it may be minor to most, it would seem that leaving spelling errors out where users see them doesn't convey all that positive an image.

rick jones

David Miller

maintainer

2008-03-19 23:53 UTC #3 lore raw

From: Rick Jones <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:17:30 -0700

Quoted 4 lines

I've not split many hairs today so I'll ask - is there _no_ way to migrate a name in /proc et al? While it may be minor to most, it would seem that leaving spelling errors out where users see them doesn't convey all that positive an image.

It's encoded into binaries out there, so we can really never change these things.

Joe Perches

2008-03-20 01:28 UTC #4 lore raw

In reply to David Miller

Quoted 7 lines · David Miller

From: Benoit Boissinot <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:42:27 +0100
Quoted 1 line
Here is a patch to fix all the spelling error (prefered -> preferred)
I think this doesn't add any value.
If the procfs file name has to remain the same, which it does, changing variable and macro names to be different will only cause merge conflicts and pain yet have no redeeming value.

I disagree. Proper spelling has value.
Misspelled words require additional time to read and parse.

Any change can cause merge conflicts.

A simple comment on the proc name use should be added though.

David Miller

maintainer

2008-03-20 01:56 UTC #5 lore raw

From: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:25:19 -0700

Quoted 10 lines · David Miller

Quoted 7 lines
From: Benoit Boissinot <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:42:27 +0100
Quoted 1 line
Here is a patch to fix all the spelling error (prefered -> preferred)
I think this doesn't add any value.
If the procfs file name has to remain the same, which it does, changing variable and macro names to be different will only cause merge conflicts and pain yet have no redeeming value.
I disagree. Proper spelling has value.

Only if it matches the spelling of thing it is implementing!

Making the object being implemented and the variables used to do so disagree in name will only create other kinds of confusion.

Benoit Boissinot

author

2008-03-20 09:00 UTC #6 lore raw

Quoted 12 lines · David Miller

From: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:25:19 -0700
Quoted 9 lines · David Miller
Quoted 7 lines
From: Benoit Boissinot <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:42:27 +0100
Quoted 1 line
Here is a patch to fix all the spelling error (prefered -> preferred)
I think this doesn't add any value.
If the procfs file name has to remain the same, which it does, changing variable and macro names to be different will only cause merge conflicts and pain yet have no redeeming value.

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 1 line
I disagree. Proper spelling has value.
Only if it matches the spelling of thing it is implementing!
Making the object being implemented and the variables used to do so disagree in name will only create other kinds of confusion.

The file already have both occurences, there are function names and variable with "preferred", sometimes mixed in the same line.

If it can help, the last time a line which uses prefered_lft was changed, it was more than a year ago (1ab1457c42bc078e5a9becd82a7f9f940b55c53a) for a whitespace cleanup.
Most of the occurences haven't been touched since the conversion to git.

regards,

Benoit

PS: I don't really care, it's just that I was touching the lifetime code and tought that maybe I should try to change the whole file before submitting my code.

Signature · 1 line

:wq