It's "a hard_limit", not "an hard_limit". Probably that was just a typo. Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Pushed as trivial. I was *so* tempted to write "Fix an typo in a article...". I'm glad I was because that made me triple check the commit message. Otherwise I would have a typo like that somewhere there. docs/formatdomain.html.in | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/docs/formatdomain.html.in b/docs/formatdomain.html.in index 8bb6636ea9f9..22ef81052d6b 100644 --- a/docs/formatdomain.html.in +++ b/docs/formatdomain.html.in @@ -1085,7 +1085,7 @@ of memory, which means a malicious guest allocating large amounts of locked memory could cause a denial-of-service attack on the host. Because of this, using this option is discouraged unless your workload - demands it; even then, it's highly recommended to set an + demands it; even then, it's highly recommended to set a <code>hard_limit</code> (see <a href="#elementsMemoryTuning">memory tuning</a>) on memory allocation suitable for the specific environment at the same time to mitigate -- 2.17.1