npiggin
diff --git a/‎Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst
-5 b/‎Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst
-5
diff --git a/‎Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst
+5-5 b/‎Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst
+5-5
diff --git a/‎Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
+2-2 b/‎Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
+2-2
diff --git a/‎Documentation/bpf/index.rst
+1-2 b/‎Documentation/bpf/index.rst
+1-2
diff --git a/‎Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
+3-3 b/‎Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
+3-3
diff --git a/‎Documentation/bpf/standardization/index.rst
+18 b/‎Documentation/bpf/standardization/index.rst
+18
@@ -140,11 +140,6 @@ A: Because if we picked one-to-one relationship to x64 it would have made
 it more complicated to support on arm64 and other archs. Also it
 needs div-by-zero runtime check.
 
-Q: Why there is no BPF_SDIV for signed divide operation?
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-A: Because it would be rarely used. llvm errors in such case and
-prints a suggestion to use unsigned divide instead.
-
 Q: Why BPF has implicit prologue and epilogue?
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 A: Because architectures like sparc have register windows and in general
 
@@ -635,12 +635,12 @@ test coverage.
 
 Q: clang flag for target bpf?
 -----------------------------
-Q: In some cases clang flag ``-target bpf`` is used but in other cases the
+Q: In some cases clang flag ``--target=bpf`` is used but in other cases the
 default clang target, which matches the underlying architecture, is used.
 What is the difference and when I should use which?
 
 A: Although LLVM IR generation and optimization try to stay architecture
-independent, ``-target <arch>`` still has some impact on generated code:
+independent, ``--target=<arch>`` still has some impact on generated code:
 
 - BPF program may recursively include header file(s) with file scope
   inline assembly codes. The default target can handle this well,
@@ -658,7 +658,7 @@ independent, ``-target <arch>`` still has some impact on generated code:
   The clang option ``-fno-jump-tables`` can be used to disable
   switch table generation.
 
-- For clang ``-target bpf``, it is guaranteed that pointer or long /
+- For clang ``--target=bpf``, it is guaranteed that pointer or long /
   unsigned long types will always have a width of 64 bit, no matter
   whether underlying clang binary or default target (or kernel) is
   32 bit. However, when native clang target is used, then it will
@@ -668,7 +668,7 @@ independent, ``-target <arch>`` still has some impact on generated code:
   while the BPF LLVM back end still operates in 64 bit. The native
   target is mostly needed in tracing for the case of walking ``pt_regs``
   or other kernel structures where CPU's register width matters.
-  Otherwise, ``clang -target bpf`` is generally recommended.
+  Otherwise, ``clang --target=bpf`` is generally recommended.
 
 You should use default target when:
 
@@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ when:
   into these structures is verified by the BPF verifier and may result
   in verification failures if the native architecture is not aligned with
   the BPF architecture, e.g. 64-bit. An example of this is
-  BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_MSG require ``-target bpf``
+  BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_MSG require ``--target=bpf``
 
 
 .. Links
 
@@ -990,7 +990,7 @@ format.::
     } g2;
     int main() { return 0; }
     int test() { return 0; }
-    -bash-4.4$ clang -c -g -O2 -target bpf t2.c
+    -bash-4.4$ clang -c -g -O2 --target=bpf t2.c
     -bash-4.4$ readelf -S t2.o
       ......
       [ 8] .BTF              PROGBITS         0000000000000000  00000247
@@ -1000,7 +1000,7 @@ format.::
       [10] .rel.BTF.ext      REL              0000000000000000  000007e0
            0000000000000040  0000000000000010          16     9     8
       ......
-    -bash-4.4$ clang -S -g -O2 -target bpf t2.c
+    -bash-4.4$ clang -S -g -O2 --target=bpf t2.c
     -bash-4.4$ cat t2.s
       ......
             .section        .BTF,"",@progbits
 
@@ -12,9 +12,9 @@ that goes into great technical depth about the BPF Architecture.
 .. toctree::
    :maxdepth: 1
 
-   instruction-set
    verifier
    libbpf/index
+   standardization/index
    btf
    faq
    syscall_api
@@ -29,7 +29,6 @@ that goes into great technical depth about the BPF Architecture.
    bpf_licensing
    test_debug
    clang-notes
-   linux-notes
    other
    redirect
 
 
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ For example, for the following code::
     return g1 + g2 + l1 + l2;
   }
 
-Compiled with ``clang -target bpf -O2 -c test.c``, the following is
+Compiled with ``clang --target=bpf -O2 -c test.c``, the following is
 the code with ``llvm-objdump -dr test.o``::
 
        0:       18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll
@@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ and ``call`` instructions. For example::
     return gfunc(a, b) +  lfunc(a, b) + global;
   }
 
-Compiled with ``clang -target bpf -O2 -c test.c``, we will have
+Compiled with ``clang --target=bpf -O2 -c test.c``, we will have
 following code with `llvm-objdump -dr test.o``::
 
   Disassembly of section .text:
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ The following is an example to show how R_BPF_64_ABS64 could be generated::
   int global() { return 0; }
   struct t { void *g; } gbl = { global };
 
-Compiled with ``clang -target bpf -O2 -g -c test.c``, we will see a
+Compiled with ``clang --target=bpf -O2 -g -c test.c``, we will see a
 relocation below in ``.data`` section with command
 ``llvm-readelf -r test.o``::
 
 
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: (LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause)
+
+===================
+BPF Standardization
+===================
+
+This directory contains documents that are being iterated on as part of the BPF
+standardization effort with the IETF. See the `IETF BPF Working Group`_ page
+for the working group charter, documents, and more.
+
+.. toctree::
+   :maxdepth: 1
+
+   instruction-set
+   linux-notes
+
+.. Links:
+.. _IETF BPF Working Group: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bpf/about/