[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a09cbf07-f6b9-4808-a955-2f506c320585@linux.dev>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2025 07:32:02 -0700
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
To: Eslam Khafagy <eslam.medhat1993@...il.com>
Cc: skhan@...uxfoundation.org, 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>, 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>,
"open list:BPF [DOCUMENTATION] (Related to Standardization)"
<bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:BPF [DOCUMENTATION] (Related to Standardization)" <bpf@...f.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] Documentation: Enhance readability in BPF docs
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@...il.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
> ---
> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists