From: Eslam Khafagy Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:24:25 +0000 (+0300) Subject: bpf, doc: Improve wording of docs X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=c9b03a11005f6c1b8945a69f456653e8cdb70fdb;p=thirdparty%2Fkernel%2Fstable.git bpf, doc: Improve wording of 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 Acked-by: Yonghong Song Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250607222434.227890-1-eslam.medhat1993@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- 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