On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 11:33:42 +1000, Con Kolivas said: > On Wednesday 05 July 2006 11:15, Peter Williams wrote: > > Con Kolivas wrote: > > >> + * don't let them adversely effect tasks on the expired > > > > > > ok I'm going to risk a lart and say "affect" ? No, that would be correct English. > > I have to refer you to the Oxford English Dictionary. Actually, something like Strunk&White's "Elements of Style" is better suited to this sort of thing than the OED. The OED just lists *words*, not how to put them together. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/020530902X/qid=1152072733/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2430423-3716834?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 > I was hoping you would. They would *affect* tasks. The *effect* of this would be... Note that 'effect' can be a verb too, but in that sense it refers to a "facilitator" - "The mayor effected change in policy" meaning that he made it happen. So in the kernel, "A effects B" is only correct if A is code that is intended to make B happen. If A, through blind all-elbows coding, happens to cause B to change, then "A affects B" is proper. Clear as mud? :) If not, read the Strunk&White explanation of this one. :)
Attachment:
pgpbFwQ6TRKvY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- [PATCH] sched: Add SCHED_BGND (background) scheduling policy
- From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] sched: Add SCHED_BGND (background) scheduling policy
- From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] sched: Add SCHED_BGND (background) scheduling policy
- From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] sched: Add SCHED_BGND (background) scheduling policy
- From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] sched: Add SCHED_BGND (background) scheduling policy
- Prev by Date: Re: ext4 features
- Next by Date: Re: ext4 features
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] sched: Add SCHED_BGND (background) scheduling policy
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] sched: Add SCHED_BGND (background) scheduling policy
- Index(es):
 |