linux-kernel - Re: [v3 PATCH 0/1] tracing: Add bitmask-list option for human-readable bitmask display

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20260110161021.2aa5f19c@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2026 16:10:21 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>
Cc: mhiramat@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
 mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, corbet@....net, sean@...e.io,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH 0/1] tracing: Add bitmask-list option for
 human-readable bitmask display

On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 16:06:02 -0500
Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 26, 2025 at 11:07:23AM -0500, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> > 
> > This patch adds support for displaying bitmasks in human-readable list
> > format (e.g., 0,2-5,7) in addition to the default hexadecimal bitmap
> > representation. This is particularly useful when tracing CPU masks and
> > other large bitmasks where individual bit positions are more meaningful
> > than their hexadecimal encoding.
> > 
> > When the "bitmask-list" option is enabled, the printk "%*pbl" format
> > specifier is used to render bitmasks as comma-separated ranges, making
> > trace output easier to interpret for complex CPU configurations and
> > large bitmask values.
> > 
> > This iteration incorporates the use of iter->tmp_seq to ensure the
> > implementation is robust, instance-aware, and free from buffer contention
> > or duplication issues.
> > 
> > Please let me know your thoughts.  
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> I would like to ask if this iteration is suitable for inclusion, or should
> any further refinements be made?
> 

You can always check the status of a patch from patchwork. This one is here:

  https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-trace-kernel/patch/20251226160724.2246493-2-atomlin@atomlin.com/

The states are:

  New		- I haven't looked at it.
  Under Review	- I have it in a local queue (can still be rejected)
  Queued	- It's moved to linux-next
  Accepted	- It's in Linus's tree

Other states I will most likely have a response to.

This one is currently in the "Under Review" state. It also means I haven't
found anything wrong with it. It just hasn't gone through all my tests.

-- Steve


> 
> Kind regards,