On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 10:26 AM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I just stumbled on this when modifying the docs. > > Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Looks good to me from a KVM RISC-V perspective. Reviewed-by: Anup Patel <anup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Regards, Anup > --- > Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst > index dfe0ac5624fb..5da6f9b273d6 100644 > --- a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst > +++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst > @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ 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 > performance impact of adding kernel code for implementor-specific > -RISC-V extensions, we'll only to accept patches for extensions that > +RISC-V extensions, we'll only accept patches for extensions that > have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation. > (Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees > containing code for any custom extensions that they wish.) > -- > 2.38.0 > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-riscv mailing list > linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
