On 6/7/25 3:24 PM, Eslam Khafagy wrote:
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>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@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
