> -----Original Message----- > From: Eslam Khafagy <eslam.medhat1993@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 3:05 AM > To: void@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ast@xxxxxxxxxx > Cc: linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > Eslam Khafagy <eslam.medhat1993@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [PATCH bpf-next] Documentation: Fix spelling mistake. > > Fix typo "desination => destination" > in file > Documentation/bpf/standardization/instruction-set.rst > > 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 fbe975585236..ac950a5bb6ad 100644 > --- a/Documentation/bpf/standardization/instruction-set.rst > +++ b/Documentation/bpf/standardization/instruction-set.rst > @@ -350,9 +350,9 @@ 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 desination register is instead set to ``LLONG_MIN``. For > +dividing -1, the destination register is instead set to ``LLONG_MIN``. > +For > ``ALU``, if execution would result in ``INT_MIN`` dividing -1, the -desination register > is instead set to ``INT_MIN``. > +destination register is instead set to ``INT_MIN``. > > If execution would result in modulo by zero, for ``ALU64`` the value of the > destination register is unchanged whereas for ``ALU`` the upper > -- > 2.43.0 For just the spelling correction: Acked-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler1968@xxxxxxxxx> However the phrase "dividing -1" is one I find confusing. E.g., "INT_MIN dividing -1" sounds like "-1 / INT_MIN" rather than the inverse. Perhaps "divided by" instead of "dividing" assuming the inverse is meant. Dave
