On 2/8/23 23:13, Randy Dunlap wrote:
Correct spelling problems for Documentation/x86/ as reported
by codespell.
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-sgx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: x86@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
Documentation/x86/boot.rst | 2 +-
Documentation/x86/buslock.rst | 2 +-
Documentation/x86/mds.rst | 2 +-
Documentation/x86/resctrl.rst | 2 +-
Documentation/x86/sgx.rst | 2 +-
5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff -- a/Documentation/x86/boot.rst b/Documentation/x86/boot.rst
--- a/Documentation/x86/boot.rst
+++ b/Documentation/x86/boot.rst
@@ -1105,7 +1105,7 @@ The kernel command line should not be lo
code, nor should it be located in high memory.
-Sample Boot Configuartion
+Sample Boot Configuration
=========================
As a sample configuration, assume the following layout of the real
diff -- a/Documentation/x86/buslock.rst b/Documentation/x86/buslock.rst
--- a/Documentation/x86/buslock.rst
+++ b/Documentation/x86/buslock.rst
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ mechanisms to detect split locks and bus
--------------------------------------
Beginning with the Tremont Atom CPU split lock operations may raise an
-Alignment Check (#AC) exception when a split lock operation is attemped.
+Alignment Check (#AC) exception when a split lock operation is attempted.
#DB exception for bus lock detection
------------------------------------
diff -- a/Documentation/x86/mds.rst b/Documentation/x86/mds.rst
--- a/Documentation/x86/mds.rst
+++ b/Documentation/x86/mds.rst
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ needed for exploiting MDS requires:
data
The existence of such a construct in the kernel cannot be excluded with
-100% certainty, but the complexity involved makes it extremly unlikely.
+100% certainty, but the complexity involved makes it extremely unlikely.
There is one exception, which is untrusted BPF. The functionality of
untrusted BPF is limited, but it needs to be thoroughly investigated
diff -- a/Documentation/x86/resctrl.rst b/Documentation/x86/resctrl.rst
--- a/Documentation/x86/resctrl.rst
+++ b/Documentation/x86/resctrl.rst
@@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ this would be dependent on number of cor
depending on # of threads:
For the same SKU in #1, a 'single thread, with 10% bandwidth' and '4
-thread, with 10% bandwidth' can consume upto 10GBps and 40GBps although
+thread, with 10% bandwidth' can consume up to 10GBps and 40GBps although
they have same percentage bandwidth of 10%. This is simply because as
threads start using more cores in an rdtgroup, the actual bandwidth may
increase or vary although user specified bandwidth percentage is same.
diff -- a/Documentation/x86/sgx.rst b/Documentation/x86/sgx.rst
--- a/Documentation/x86/sgx.rst
+++ b/Documentation/x86/sgx.rst
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ SGX will likely become unusable because
limited. However, while this may be fatal to SGX, the rest of the kernel
is unlikely to be impacted and should continue to work.
-As a result, when this happpens, user should stop running any new
+As a result, when this happens, the user should stop running any new
SGX workloads, (or just any new workloads), and migrate all valuable
workloads. Although a machine reboot can recover all EPC memory, the bug
should be reported to Linux developers.
Acked-by: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks.
-Fenghua
