[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250607222434.227890-1-eslam.medhat1993@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2025 01:24:25 +0300
From: Eslam Khafagy <eslam.medhat1993@...il.com>
To:
Cc: skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
eslam.medhat1993@...il.com,
David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Dave Thaler <dthaler1968@...glemail.com>,
bpf@...r.kernel.org (open list:BPF [DOCUMENTATION] (Related to Standardization)),
bpf@...f.org (open list:BPF [DOCUMENTATION] (Related to Standardization)),
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org (open list:DOCUMENTATION),
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list)
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next] Documentation: Enhance readability in BPF docs
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@...il.com>
---
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists