Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

linux/concept: af-xdp concept fixes #76

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 9, 2024

Conversation

cataldor
Copy link

@cataldor cataldor commented Nov 8, 2024

Hello,
this PR has a number of fixes for the AF_XDP concept page.

The first commit is a collection of typos. I think they are not controversial, so I put them together.

The second commit homogenize the article before the word XDP; before, sometimes it was "a xdp", sometimes it was "an XDP".

The third commit swaps therefor to therefore for clarify.

Finally, the fourth commit fixes two C code samples regarding the use of sizeof() with structures.

PS: Following the same rule as commit 2, we should also use "An XSK". But, for this acronym, the text always used "a XDK". So i did not think it was worth changing it.

Correct the following typos:

* one can implementing => one can implement
* lets walk => let's walk
* only the some of => only some of
* is is set => is set
* the size of (...) need to => the size of (...) needs to
* the case were we => the case where we
* suck as => such as
* 1024 ect => 1024 etc
* to never (...) checks => to never (...) check
* rater the process => rather the process
* between between => between
* set he => set the
* to no instantiate => to not instantiate

Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Cataldo <rodrigo.cadore@l-acoustics.com>
Always use the same article for XDP: an (assuming a reading of
/ex-dee-pee/)

Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Cataldo <rodrigo.cadore@l-acoustics.com>
The adverb therefor is typically used as a synonym to therefore;
however, it is not always so (at least in legal documents). Just use
the adverb therefore directly.

Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Cataldo <rodrigo.cadore@l-acoustics.com>
Assuming a struct called S and a variable called V, sizeof(S) is valid
C++, but not valid C.

We can either use sizeof(struct S) or sizeof(V). Use the latter to fix
the C code samples.

Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Cataldo <rodrigo.cadore@l-acoustics.com>
Copy link
Collaborator

@dylandreimerink dylandreimerink left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you! This is much appreciated ❤️

@dylandreimerink dylandreimerink merged commit 449fab8 into isovalent:master Nov 9, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants