The phrase "dividing -1" is one I find confusing. E.g., "INT_MIN dividing -1" sounds like "-1 / INT_MIN" rather than the inverse. "divided by" instead of "dividing" assuming the inverse is meant. Signed-off-by: Eslam Khafagy <eslam.medhat1993@xxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/bpf/standardization/instruction-set.rst | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/standardization/instruction-set.rst b/Documentation/bpf/standardization/instruction-set.rst index ac950a5bb6ad..39c74611752b 100644 --- a/Documentation/bpf/standardization/instruction-set.rst +++ b/Documentation/bpf/standardization/instruction-set.rst @@ -350,8 +350,8 @@ Underflow and overflow are allowed during arithmetic operations, meaning the 64-bit or 32-bit value will wrap. If BPF program execution would result in division by zero, the destination register is instead set to zero. Otherwise, for ``ALU64``, if execution would result in ``LLONG_MIN`` -dividing -1, the destination register is instead set to ``LLONG_MIN``. For -``ALU``, if execution would result in ``INT_MIN`` dividing -1, the +divided by -1, the destination register is instead set to ``LLONG_MIN``. For +``ALU``, if execution would result in ``INT_MIN`` divided by -1, the destination register is instead set to ``INT_MIN``. If execution would result in modulo by zero, for ``ALU64`` the value of -- 2.43.0
