linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 0/7] Add Fieldbus subsystem + support HMS Profinet card

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: <c1b783b0-9773-17f5-d043-35e28f7797f0@suse.de>
Date:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 13:00:09 +0200
From:   Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
To:     Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
        "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>
Cc:     Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, mark.rutland@....com,
        treding@...dia.com, David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        noralf@...nnes.org, johan@...nel.org,
        Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>, michal.vokac@...ft.com,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, john.garry@...wei.com,
        geert+renesas@...der.be, robin.murphy@....com,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
        sebastien.bourdelin@...oirfairelinux.com, icenowy@...c.io,
        Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@...il.com>,
        "J. Kiszka" <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>, maxime.ripard@...tlin.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/7] Add Fieldbus subsystem + support HMS Profinet
 card

Am 24.04.19 um 12:26 schrieb Oliver Hartkopp:
> Thanks Enrico!
> 
> On 24.04.19 11:40, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
>> On 18.04.19 19:34, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:
>>
>>> If you have a fieldbus device you want to add to mainline Linux, and>
>>> you wish to piggy-back onto the fieldbus_dev subsystem, then we can>
>> discuss fieldbus API changes/additions/improvements during the> patch
>> review stage.
>> With those cases, piggy-backing wouldn't make much sense, as their
>> semantics is pretty different.
>>
>> My whole point here was just that it shouldn't be called "fieldbus",
>> but iec61158 instead.
>>
> 
> Full ACK!
> 
> The Controller Area Network also belongs to the class of field busses
> and has its own networking subsystem in linux/net/can.
> 
> So using a 'class' of communication protocols as naming scheme doesn't
> fit IMHO.

And - again - NACK. Calling a subsystem just iec61158 is going to hide
what it is and stand in the way of development of this niche system. I
asked Enrico to come up with a better naming proposal such as having
iec61158 as subfolder to human-readable fieldbus, but I did not see him
coming up with any such new proposals apart from repeating this name.

Also please read Sven's comment again: It you don't like the current
naming you'll need to post follow-up patches, as v11 of this subsystem
has been merged into staging. No complaint about piggy-backing on v10 is
going to change that fact now!

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git/tree/drivers/staging/fieldbus?h=staging-next

And since we're at it, Enrico's response to me just threw around a bunch
of acronyms instead of explaining which ones have an _actual_ conflict
with this subsystem - my point precisely was that if they use sockets or
ttys then there's no real conflict apart from lots of things classifying
as "fieldbus".

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)