| Message ID | 20220319164337.1272312-1-ma.mandourr@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | docs/bpf: Fix most/least significant bit typos | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR | success | PR summary |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Not a local patch |
On 3/19/22 5:43 PM, Mahmoud Abumandour wrote: > The LSB and MSB acronyms should not be followed by the word "bits". This > fixes this issue and uses the full phrases "most/least significant bits" > for better readibility. > > Signed-off-by: Mahmoud Abumandour <ma.mandourr@gmail.com> What "issue" is being fixed here? Why would you not use the acronyms? It's fine as-is, not applying it. Thanks, Daniel
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> writes: > On 3/19/22 5:43 PM, Mahmoud Abumandour wrote: >> The LSB and MSB acronyms should not be followed by the word "bits". This >> fixes this issue and uses the full phrases "most/least significant bits" >> for better readibility. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mahmoud Abumandour <ma.mandourr@gmail.com> > > What "issue" is being fixed here? Why would you not use the acronyms? It's fine > as-is, not applying it. I *think* that the nit being picked here is that the word "bits" after an acronym like MSB is redundant... jon
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/classic_vs_extended.rst b/Documentation/bpf/classic_vs_extended.rst index 2f81a81f5267..551d788659fa 100644 --- a/Documentation/bpf/classic_vs_extended.rst +++ b/Documentation/bpf/classic_vs_extended.rst @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ parts:: +----------------+--------+--------------------+ (MSB) (LSB) -Three LSB bits store instruction class which is one of: +The three least significant bits store instruction class which is one of: =================== =============== Classic BPF classes eBPF classes @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ The 4th bit encodes the source operand ... BPF_SRC(code) == BPF_X - use 'src_reg' register as source operand BPF_SRC(code) == BPF_K - use 32-bit immediate as source operand -... and four MSB bits store operation code. +... and the four most significant bits store operation code. If BPF_CLASS(code) == BPF_ALU or BPF_ALU64 [ in eBPF ], BPF_OP(code) is one of:: diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst b/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst index 3704836fe6df..3d123a9b3f5c 100644 --- a/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst +++ b/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst @@ -36,7 +36,8 @@ Unused fields shall be cleared to zero. Instruction classes ------------------- -The three LSB bits of the 'opcode' field store the instruction class: +The three least significant bits of the 'opcode' field store the instruction +class: ========= ===== =============================== class value description
The LSB and MSB acronyms should not be followed by the word "bits". This fixes this issue and uses the full phrases "most/least significant bits" for better readibility. Signed-off-by: Mahmoud Abumandour <ma.mandourr@gmail.com> --- Documentation/bpf/classic_vs_extended.rst | 4 ++-- Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)