Skip to main content
Unix & Linux

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

6
  • That would be serially rather than concurrently. Commented Jan 11, 2019 at 8:42
  • @JdeBP - To clarify, what would be occurring serially? Do you mean to say the commands issued against PATA drives? If yes, why do you say serially as opposed to concurrently? Commented Jan 11, 2019 at 16:36
  • No clarification is really needed. You only use the word concurrently in one context, where you should be using the word serially, so it is amply clear what needs to be fixed. And I say this because it is the correct word to use. Look up what concurrent actually means in a dictionary. Commented Jan 12, 2019 at 18:18
  • @JdeBP - I am conscious of the difference in the word serial and concurrent. The reason i used concurrent is that if i passed the command, i assumed that it would be processed concurrently. It would subsequently be limited by a single queue that would result in a serial process. Happy to be enlightened if it's otherwise. Commented Jan 12, 2019 at 20:06
  • 1
    I'm pretty sure you mean mean consecutively (one after another, as opposed to both at the same time, i.e., concurrently) in you're second paragraph. Otherwise, your question makes no sense... I edited it. Commented Jan 16, 2019 at 15:34