Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance: s/implementor/implementer

Implementor does appear to be a word, but it's not very common.

Suggested-by: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221207020815.16214-5-palmer@rivosinc.com
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>

diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
index 389a455843865ec9cc0d6dbe4a99959d0017f251..07d5a5623e2a3e87e5244b94b789c8174a983efe 100644 (file)
--- 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
@@ -37,5 +37,5 @@ RISC-V extensions, we'll only consider patches for extensions that either:
 - Have been implemented in hardware that is widely available, per standard
   Linux practice.
 
-(Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees containing
+(Implementers, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees containing
 code for any custom extensions that they wish.)