[PATCH 4/4] Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance: s/implementor/implementer

[Palmer Dabbelt]

From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at rivosinc.com>

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

Suggested-by: Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at 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