Re: [PATCH] doc: Fix some typo errors in ras.rst

[Waiman Long]

On 5/5/20 11:32 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Tue,  5 May 2020 11:10:49 -0400
> Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Fix typo errors.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   Documentation/admin-guide/ras.rst | 8 ++++----
> >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/ras.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/ras.rst
> > index 0310db624964..8b1803b2606f 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/ras.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/ras.rst
> > @@ -156,10 +156,10 @@ the labels provided by the BIOS won't match the real ones.
> >   ECC memory
> >   ----------
> >   
> > -As mentioned on the previous section, ECC memory has extra bits to be
> > -used for error correction. So, on 64 bit systems, a memory module
> > -has 64 bits of *data width*, and 74 bits of *total width*. So, there are
> > -8 bits extra bits to be used for the error detection and correction
> > +As mentioned on the previous section, ECC memory has extra bits to
> > +be used for error correction. So, on 64 bit systems, a memory module
> > +has 64 bits of *data width*, and 72 bits of *total width*. So, there
> > +are 8 extra bits to be used for the error detection and correction
> >   mechanisms. Those extra bits are called *syndrome*\ [#f1]_\ [#f2]_.
> So I had to work to figure out what the change was, since you didn't say
> in the changelog and you refilled the paragraph.  But this looks like a
> *factual* error, giving the wrong number of bits, right?  It seems like
> the changelog should say that.  Do the people who know about this stuff
> agree that the change is correct?
>
> Thanks,
>
> jon
Yes, I change 74 bits to 72 bits and remove an extra "bits". Will send 
out v2 to clarify that.

Thanks,
Longman