On Thu. 24 Oct. 2024 at 00:29, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx> Acked-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > 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
