Apply suggestions from code review

Co-authored-by: Marcos Maronas <[email protected]>

Author: AlexeySachkov

sycl/test-e2e/README.md

@@ -323,11 +323,11 @@ must keep using `<sycl/sycl.hpp>` provided by the SYCL2020 specification.**
 
 ## Marking tests as expected to fail
 
-Every test should be written in a way that it is either passes, or it is skipped
+Every test should be written in a way that it is either passed, or it is skipped
 (in case it is not compatible with an environment it was launched in).
 
 If for any reason you find yourself in need to temporary mark test as expected
-to fail under certain conditions, you need to submin issue to the repo to
+to fail under certain conditions, you need to submit an issue to the repo to
 analyze that failure and make test passed or skipped.
 
 Once the issue is created, you can update the test by adding `XFAIL` and

sycl/test-e2e/no-xfail-without-tracker.cpp

@@ -8,9 +8,9 @@
 // REQUIRES: linux
 //
 // Explanation of the command:
-// - search for all "XFAIL" occurences, display line with match and the next one
+// - search for all "XFAIL" occurrences, display line with match and the next one
 //   -I, --include to drop binary files and other unrelated files
-// - in the result, serach for "XFAIL" again, but invert the result - this
+// - in the result, search for "XFAIL" again, but invert the result - this
 //   allows us to get the line *after* XFAIL
 // - in those lines, check that XFAIL-TRACKER is present and correct. Once
 //   again, invert the search to get all "bad" lines
@@ -23,22 +23,22 @@
 // RUN: grep -Pv "XFAIL-TRACKER:\s+.*intel/llvm.*\d+" | \
 // RUN: wc -l | FileCheck %s --check-prefix NUMBER-OF-XFAIL-WITHOUT-TRACKER
 //
-// The number below is a number of tests which are *impropertly* XFAIL-ed, i.e.
+// The number below is a number of tests which are *improperly* XFAIL-ed, i.e.
 // we either don't have a tracker associated with a failure listed in those
 // tests, or it is listed in a wrong format.
 // Note: strictly speaking, that is not amount of files, but amount of XFAIL
 // directives. If a test contains several XFAIL directives, some of them may be
 // valid and other may not.
 //
-// That number *must not* increase. Any PR which causes this number to group
+// That number *must not* increase. Any PR which causes this number to grow
 // should be rejected and it should be updated to either keep the number as-is
 // or have it reduced (preferrably, down to zero).
 //
 // If you see this test failed for your patch, it means that you either
 // introduced XFAIL directive to a test improperly, or broke the format of an
 // existing XFAIL-ed tests.
 // Another possibility (and that is a good option) is that you updated some
-// tests to match the requried format and in that case you should just update
+// tests to match the required format and in that case you should just update
 // (i.e. reduce) the number below.
 //
 // NUMBER-OF-XFAIL-WITHOUT-TRACKER: 176