Re: [PATCH 2/5] docs: fix repeated word 'that' across documentation

[David Laight]

On Fri, 8 May 2026 11:15:28 -0600
Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 5/8/26 10:37, Adrien Reynard wrote:
> 
> Missing commit log in all your patches - I don't patch 1/5 in
> my Inbox.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Adrien Reynard <reynard.adrien.08@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   Documentation/RCU/rcu.rst                          | 2 +-
> >   Documentation/driver-api/driver-model/overview.rst | 2 +-
> >   Documentation/filesystems/netfs_library.rst        | 2 +-
> >   Documentation/trace/histogram-design.rst           | 2 +-
> >   Documentation/trace/histogram.rst                  | 2 +-
> >   5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcu.rst b/Documentation/RCU/rcu.rst
> > index bf6617b330a7..320ad3292b75 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/RCU/rcu.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcu.rst
> > @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Frequently Asked Questions
> >     Just as with spinlocks, RCU readers are not permitted to
> >     block, switch to user-mode execution, or enter the idle loop.
> >     Therefore, as soon as a CPU is seen passing through any of these
> > -  three states, we know that that CPU has exited any previous RCU
> > +  three states, we know that CPU has exited any previous RCU  
> 
> The original intent might have been to say, "that cpu", so adding
> the missing comma after the first "that" or change "that" to "the"
> would make sense.
...

I don't think adding a comma would be correct.
The clause splits as 'we know that' 'that CPU' and the repeated 'that'
is absolutely correct.
Maybe 'that CPU' could be replaced by 'it'; but it can be difficult to
work out what back references like 'it' refer to.

You can re-order it, as (say):
	Therefore we know that as soon as a CPU is seen passing through any of these
	three states it has exited any previous RCU read-side critical sections.

But just because some grammar book says you shouldn't have repeated words
doesn't mean there aren't exceptions.

The sign writer was doing a new sign for the 'Pig and Whistle'.
Unfortunately the gaps between Pig and and and and and Whistle
ended up visibly different.

-- David