Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 13 Oct 2022 12:39:39 +0100
From:   Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
CC:     Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>, Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>,
        <corbet@lwn.net>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux@rivosinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance:
 s/implementor/implementer
Message-ID: <Y0f4+xfKls4qB1Ea@wendy>
References: <20221013045619.18906-1-palmer@rivosinc.com>
 <20221013045619.18906-5-palmer@rivosinc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221013045619.18906-5-palmer@rivosinc.com>
Precedence: bulk

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
>