Documentation: Use "while" instead of "whilst"
Whilst making an unrelated change to some Documentation, Linus sayeth:
| Afaik, even in Britain, "whilst" is unusual and considered more
| formal, and "while" is the common word.
|
| [...]
|
| Can we just admit that we work with computers, and we don't need to
| use þe eald Englisc spelling of words that most of the world never
| uses?
dictionary.com refers to the word as "Chiefly British", which is
probably an undesirable attribute for technical documentation.
Replace all occurrences under Documentation/ with "while".
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@google.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index c1d9139..1c22b21 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -587,7 +587,7 @@
(Q == &B) and (D == 2) ????
-Whilst this may seem like a failure of coherency or causality maintenance, it
+While this may seem like a failure of coherency or causality maintenance, it
isn't, and this behaviour can be observed on certain real CPUs (such as the DEC
Alpha).
@@ -2008,7 +2008,7 @@
Certain locking variants of the ACQUIRE operation may fail, either due to
being unable to get the lock immediately, or due to receiving an unblocked
- signal whilst asleep waiting for the lock to become available. Failed
+ signal while asleep waiting for the lock to become available. Failed
locks do not imply any sort of barrier.
[!] Note: one of the consequences of lock ACQUIREs and RELEASEs being only
@@ -2508,7 +2508,7 @@
ATOMIC OPERATIONS
-----------------
-Whilst they are technically interprocessor interaction considerations, atomic
+While they are technically interprocessor interaction considerations, atomic
operations are noted specially as some of them imply full memory barriers and
some don't, but they're very heavily relied on as a group throughout the
kernel.
@@ -2531,7 +2531,7 @@
Inside of the Linux kernel, I/O should be done through the appropriate accessor
routines - such as inb() or writel() - which know how to make such accesses
-appropriately sequential. Whilst this, for the most part, renders the explicit
+appropriately sequential. While this, for the most part, renders the explicit
use of memory barriers unnecessary, there are a couple of situations where they
might be needed:
@@ -2555,7 +2555,7 @@
This may be alleviated - at least in part - by disabling local interrupts (a
form of locking), such that the critical operations are all contained within
-the interrupt-disabled section in the driver. Whilst the driver's interrupt
+the interrupt-disabled section in the driver. While the driver's interrupt
routine is executing, the driver's core may not run on the same CPU, and its
interrupt is not permitted to happen again until the current interrupt has been
handled, thus the interrupt handler does not need to lock against that.
@@ -2763,7 +2763,7 @@
Life isn't quite as simple as it may appear above, however: for while the
caches are expected to be coherent, there's no guarantee that that coherency
-will be ordered. This means that whilst changes made on one CPU will
+will be ordered. This means that while changes made on one CPU will
eventually become visible on all CPUs, there's no guarantee that they will
become apparent in the same order on those other CPUs.
@@ -2799,7 +2799,7 @@
(*) an even-numbered cache line may be in cache B, cache D or it may still be
resident in memory;
- (*) whilst the CPU core is interrogating one cache, the other cache may be
+ (*) while the CPU core is interrogating one cache, the other cache may be
making use of the bus to access the rest of the system - perhaps to
displace a dirty cacheline or to do a speculative load;
@@ -2835,7 +2835,7 @@
x = *q;
The above pair of reads may then fail to happen in the expected order, as the
-cacheline holding p may get updated in one of the second CPU's caches whilst
+cacheline holding p may get updated in one of the second CPU's caches while
the update to the cacheline holding v is delayed in the other of the second
CPU's caches by some other cache event:
@@ -2855,7 +2855,7 @@
<C:unbusy>
<C:commit v=2>
-Basically, whilst both cachelines will be updated on CPU 2 eventually, there's
+Basically, while both cachelines will be updated on CPU 2 eventually, there's
no guarantee that, without intervention, the order of update will be the same
as that committed on CPU 1.
@@ -2885,7 +2885,7 @@
This sort of problem can be encountered on DEC Alpha processors as they have a
split cache that improves performance by making better use of the data bus.
-Whilst most CPUs do imply a data dependency barrier on the read when a memory
+While most CPUs do imply a data dependency barrier on the read when a memory
access depends on a read, not all do, so it may not be relied on.
Other CPUs may also have split caches, but must coordinate between the various
@@ -2974,7 +2974,7 @@
thus cutting down on transaction setup costs (memory and PCI devices may
both be able to do this); and
- (*) the CPU's data cache may affect the ordering, and whilst cache-coherency
+ (*) the CPU's data cache may affect the ordering, and while cache-coherency
mechanisms may alleviate this - once the store has actually hit the cache
- there's no guarantee that the coherency management will be propagated in
order to other CPUs.