[PATCH v3 4/4] Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance: s/implementor/implementer

[Palmer Dabbelt]

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

Suggested-by: Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Anup Patel <anup at brainfault.org>
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
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 02e6a48809ef..adadbbbf5bf5 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
@@ -37,5 +37,5 @@ RISC-V extensions, we'll only consider patches for extensions that either:
 - Have been implemented in hardware that is either 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.)
-- 
2.38.1