[PATCH] Fix error in J1939 documentation.

[PATCH] Fix error in J1939 documentation.

[Alexander Hölzl]

The description of PDU1 format usage mistakenly referred to PDU2 format.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Hölzl <alexander.hoelzl@gmx.net>
---
 Documentation/networking/j1939.rst | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/networking/j1939.rst b/Documentation/networking/j1939.rst
index e4bd7aa1f5aa..544bad175aae 100644
--- a/Documentation/networking/j1939.rst
+++ b/Documentation/networking/j1939.rst
@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ format, the Group Extension is set in the PS-field.

 On the other hand, when using PDU1 format, the PS-field contains a so-called
 Destination Address, which is _not_ part of the PGN. When communicating a PGN
-from user space to kernel (or vice versa) and PDU2 format is used, the PS-field
+from user space to kernel (or vice versa) and PDU1 format is used, the PS-field
 of the PGN shall be set to zero. The Destination Address shall be set
 elsewhere.

--
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] Fix error in J1939 documentation.

[Oleksij Rempel]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 04:52:57PM +0200, Alexander Hölzl wrote:
> The description of PDU1 format usage mistakenly referred to PDU2 format.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Hölzl <alexander.hoelzl@gmx.net>

Acked-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>

Thank you!

Re: [PATCH] Fix error in J1939 documentation.

[Paolo Abeni]

On 10/23/24 16:52, Alexander Hölzl wrote:
> The description of PDU1 format usage mistakenly referred to PDU2 format.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Hölzl <alexander.hoelzl@gmx.net>
> ---
>  Documentation/networking/j1939.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/networking/j1939.rst b/Documentation/networking/j1939.rst
> index e4bd7aa1f5aa..544bad175aae 100644
> --- a/Documentation/networking/j1939.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/networking/j1939.rst
> @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ format, the Group Extension is set in the PS-field.
> 
>  On the other hand, when using PDU1 format, the PS-field contains a so-called
>  Destination Address, which is _not_ part of the PGN. When communicating a PGN
> -from user space to kernel (or vice versa) and PDU2 format is used, the PS-field
> +from user space to kernel (or vice versa) and PDU1 format is used, the PS-field
>  of the PGN shall be set to zero. The Destination Address shall be set
>  elsewhere.

You need to CC netdev or this patch will be lost,

Thanks,

Paolo

Re: [PATCH] Fix error in J1939 documentation.

[Vincent MAILHOL]

On Thu. 24 Oct. 2024 at 00:29, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/24 16:52, Alexander Hölzl wrote:
> > The description of PDU1 format usage mistakenly referred to PDU2 format.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Hölzl <alexander.hoelzl@gmx.net>

Acked-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>

> > ---
> >  Documentation/networking/j1939.rst | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/networking/j1939.rst b/Documentation/networking/j1939.rst
> > index e4bd7aa1f5aa..544bad175aae 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/networking/j1939.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/networking/j1939.rst
> > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ format, the Group Extension is set in the PS-field.
> >
> >  On the other hand, when using PDU1 format, the PS-field contains a so-called
> >  Destination Address, which is _not_ part of the PGN. When communicating a PGN
> > -from user space to kernel (or vice versa) and PDU2 format is used, the PS-field
> > +from user space to kernel (or vice versa) and PDU1 format is used, the PS-field
> >  of the PGN shall be set to zero. The Destination Address shall be set
> >  elsewhere.
>
> You need to CC netdev or this patch will be lost,

linux-can is a sub tree of netdev. This patch has the linux-can
mailing and all the linux-can maintainers in CC, so it will not be
lost. It is true that according to the process, netdev should also be
put in CC, but for a patch like this which is really specific to the
CAN protocol, I think it is acceptable to omit netdev.

Regardless, thanks for your comment!


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol