Messages in this thread | | | From | Jonathan Corbet <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Fixed typo in Documentation/x86/x86_64/5level-paging.rst | Date | Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:07:50 -0600 |
| |
bilbao@vt.edu writes:
OK, we're getting closer...
> Hello Jon, thanks a lot for your feedback, it was instructive. I attach changelog and the patch as plain text below.
A comment like this should go below the "---" line; otherwise it has to be edited out when the patch is applied.
> I fix two typos in the documentation (Documentation/x86/x86_64/5level-paging.rst), changing 'paing' for > 'paging' and using the right verbal form for plural on 'some vendors offer'.
Please keep changelogs below the 80-column limit. Some maintainers will also get grumpy with you for not using the imperative form ("Fix two typos") here.
> Signed-off-by: Carlos Bilbao <bilbao@vt.edu> > --- > Documentation/x86/x86_64/5level-paging.rst | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/x86/x86_64/5level-paging.rst b/Documentation/x86/x86_64/5level-paging.rst > index 44856417e6a5..b792bbdc0b01 100644 > --- a/Documentation/x86/x86_64/5level-paging.rst > +++ b/Documentation/x86/x86_64/5level-paging.rst > @@ -6,9 +6,9 @@ > > Overview > ======== > -Original x86-64 was limited by 4-level paing to 256 TiB of virtual address > +Original x86-64 was limited by 4-level paging to 256 TiB of virtual address > space and 64 TiB of physical address space. We are already bumping into > -this limit: some vendors offers servers with 64 TiB of memory today. > +this limit: some vendors offer servers with 64 TiB of memory today. > > To overcome the limitation upcoming hardware will introduce support for > 5-level paging. It is a straight-forward extension of the current page > -- > 2.25.1 > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 11:45:45 AM EDT Jonathan Corbet wrote: >> Carlos Bilbao <bilbao@vt.edu> writes: >> > Signed-off-by: Carlos Bilbao <bilbao@vt.edu>
Just about *all* maintainers will get grumpy with you for top posting; never do that. Especially not for patches, but just don't do it ever.
I've fixed these things up and applied (what appears to be) your first kernel patch. Thanks,
jon
| |