netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: ethtool: clarify the bit-by-bit bitset format description

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

Message-ID: <20260203195338.1b1fa65a@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 19:53:38 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Yohei Kojima <yk@...oj.net>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon
 Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: ethtool: clarify the bit-by-bit bitset
 format description

On Tue,  3 Feb 2026 00:17:19 +0900 Yohei Kojima wrote:
> Clarify the format and semantics of the bit-by-bit bitset by the
> following changes:
> * Explicitly describe the mandatory and optional fields in one paragraph
> * Detail what happens if ETHTOOL_A_BITSET_NOMASK is set
> * Clarify that users can set both BIT_INDEX and BIT_NAME fields

To be honest I'm not entirely sure which doc is easier to follow,
before or after this patch :(
-- 
pw-bot: cr