Re: [PATCH bpf-next] Documentation: Enhance readability in BPF docs

[Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>]

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@gmail.com>

Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.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