Re: [PATCH 04/35] Documentation: bpf: correct spelling

David Vernet
2023-01-30T14:26:47Z

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:39:34PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Correct spelling problems for Documentation/bpf/ as reported
> by codespell.
>
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> Documentation/bpf/libbpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst | 6 +++---
> Documentation/bpf/map_xskmap.rst | 2 +-
> Documentation/bpf/ringbuf.rst | 4 ++--
> Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff -- a/Documentation/bpf/libbpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst b/Documentation/bpf/libbpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst
> --- a/Documentation/bpf/libbpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/libbpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst
> @@ -83,8 +83,8 @@ This prevents from accidentally exportin
> to be a part of ABI what, in turn, improves both libbpf developer- and
> user-experiences.
>
> -ABI versionning
> ----------------
> +ABI versioning
> +--------------
>
> To make future ABI extensions possible libbpf ABI is versioned.
> Versioning is implemented by ``libbpf.map`` version script that is
> @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ API documentation convention
> The libbpf API is documented via comments above definitions in
> header files. These comments can be rendered by doxygen and sphinx
> for well organized html output. This section describes the
> -convention in which these comments should be formated.
> +convention in which these comments should be formatted.
>
> Here is an example from btf.h:
>
> diff -- a/Documentation/bpf/map_xskmap.rst b/Documentation/bpf/map_xskmap.rst
> --- a/Documentation/bpf/map_xskmap.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/map_xskmap.rst
> @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ The following code snippet shows how to
>
> For an example on how create AF_XDP sockets, please see the AF_XDP-example and
> AF_XDP-forwarding programs in the `bpf-examples`_ directory in the `libxdp`_ repository.
> -For a detailed explaination of the AF_XDP interface please see:
> +For a detailed explanation of the AF_XDP interface please see:
>
> - `libxdp-readme`_.
> - `AF_XDP`_ kernel documentation.
> diff -- a/Documentation/bpf/ringbuf.rst b/Documentation/bpf/ringbuf.rst
> --- a/Documentation/bpf/ringbuf.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/ringbuf.rst
> @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ buffer. Currently 4 are supported:
>
> - ``BPF_RB_AVAIL_DATA`` returns amount of unconsumed data in ring buffer;
> - ``BPF_RB_RING_SIZE`` returns the size of ring buffer;
> -- ``BPF_RB_CONS_POS``/``BPF_RB_PROD_POS`` returns current logical possition
> +- ``BPF_RB_CONS_POS``/``BPF_RB_PROD_POS`` returns current logical position
> of consumer/producer, respectively.
>
> Returned values are momentarily snapshots of ring buffer state and could be
> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ Design and Implementation
> This reserve/commit schema allows a natural way for multiple producers, either
> on different CPUs or even on the same CPU/in the same BPF program, to reserve
> independent records and work with them without blocking other producers. This
> -means that if BPF program was interruped by another BPF program sharing the
> +means that if BPF program was interrupted by another BPF program sharing the

While you're here, could you please also fix this:

s/if BPF program/if a BPF program

> same ring buffer, they will both get a record reserved (provided there is
> enough space left) and can work with it and submit it independently. This
> applies to NMI context as well, except that due to using a spinlock during
> diff -- a/Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst b/Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst
> --- a/Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst
> @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ checked and found to be non-NULL, all co
> As well as range-checking, the tracked information is also used for enforcing
> alignment of pointer accesses. For instance, on most systems the packet pointer
> is 2 bytes after a 4-byte alignment. If a program adds 14 bytes to that to jump
> -over the Ethernet header, then reads IHL and addes (IHL * 4), the resulting
> +over the Ethernet header, then reads IHL and adds (IHL * 4), the resulting
> pointer will have a variable offset known to be 4n+2 for some n, so adding the 2
> bytes (NET_IP_ALIGN) gives a 4-byte alignment and so word-sized accesses through
> that pointer are safe.

Otherwise, LGTM. I'll wait to add stamp until the v2 sent to bpf-next
instead of bpf.