On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 15:06:00 +0200 Andrew Kreimer <algonell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > There are some typos in the documentation: 'a' -> 'at', missing 'to'. > Fix them. > Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- Steve > Signed-off-by: Andrew Kreimer <algonell@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/trace/rv/runtime-verification.rst | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/trace/rv/runtime-verification.rst b/Documentation/trace/rv/runtime-verification.rst > index dae78dfa7cdc..c700dde9259c 100644 > --- a/Documentation/trace/rv/runtime-verification.rst > +++ b/Documentation/trace/rv/runtime-verification.rst > @@ -8,14 +8,14 @@ checking* and *theorem proving*) with a more practical approach for complex > systems. > > Instead of relying on a fine-grained model of a system (e.g., a > -re-implementation a instruction level), RV works by analyzing the trace of the > +re-implementation at instruction level), RV works by analyzing the trace of the > system's actual execution, comparing it against a formal specification of > the system behavior. > > The main advantage is that RV can give precise information on the runtime > behavior of the monitored system, without the pitfalls of developing models > that require a re-implementation of the entire system in a modeling language. > -Moreover, given an efficient monitoring method, it is possible execute an > +Moreover, given an efficient monitoring method, it is possible to execute an > *online* verification of a system, enabling the *reaction* for unexpected > events, avoiding, for example, the propagation of a failure on safety-critical > systems.
