Re: [PATCH 4/4] Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance: s/implementor/implementer

[Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 09:56:19PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
> 
> Implementor does appear to be a word, but it's not very common.
> 
> Suggested-by: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>

The overlords would probably rather this email got the credit but
doesn't really matter for S-b tags.
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
> index 9fed6b318b49..89c7d8abd4bb 100644
> --- a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ specifications from the RISC-V foundation this means "Frozen" or
>  ECR.  (Developers may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees
>  that contain code for any draft extensions that they wish.)
>  
> -Additionally, the RISC-V specification allows implementors to create
> +Additionally, the RISC-V specification allows implementers to create
>  their own custom extensions.  These custom extensions aren't required
>  to go through any review or ratification process by the RISC-V
>  Foundation.  To avoid the maintenance complexity and potential
> @@ -38,5 +38,5 @@ RISC-V extensions, we'll only accept patches for extensions that either:
>    for which a timeline for availability has been made public.
>  
>  Hardware that does not meet its published timelines may have support
> -removed.  (Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel
> +removed.  (Implementers, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel
>  trees containing code for any custom extensions that they wish.)
> -- 
> 2.38.0
>