From 376ab13f1a182afa6dde556dceab80d467294e26 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jonathan Fok kan <jfokkan@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 01:28:13 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Fixed typos in post Allocating Frames

---
 posts/2015-11-15-allocating-frames.md | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/posts/2015-11-15-allocating-frames.md b/posts/2015-11-15-allocating-frames.md
index 230c4263..4c19f22d 100644
--- a/posts/2015-11-15-allocating-frames.md
+++ b/posts/2015-11-15-allocating-frames.md
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ let boot_info = unsafe{ multiboot2::load(multiboot_information_address) };
 let memory_map_tag = boot_info.memory_map_tag().expect("Memory map tag required");
 
 println!("memory areas:");
-for area in emory_map_tag.memory_areas() {
+for area in memory_map_tag.memory_areas() {
     println!("    start: 0x{:x}, length: 0x{:x}", area.base_addr, area.length);
 }
 ```
@@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ let mut frame_allocator = memory::AreaFrameAllocator::new(
 Now we can test it by adding some frame allocations:
 
 ```rust
-println!("{:?}", frame_allocator.allocate_frame())
+println!("{:?}", frame_allocator.allocate_frame());
 ```
 You will see that the frame number starts at `0` and increases steadily, but the kernel and Multiboot frames are left out (you need to allocate many frames to see this since the kernel starts at frame 256).