[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191011055619.GC2901@nanopsycho>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 07:56:19 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 13/17] ethtool: add standard notification
handler
Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:17:43PM CEST, mkubecek@...e.cz wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:25:59PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 10:59:40PM CEST, mkubecek@...e.cz wrote:
[...]
>> >+
>> >+/* generic notification handler */
>> >+static void ethnl_std_notify(struct net_device *dev, unsigned int cmd,
>>
>> Better "common" comparing to "standard", I believe.
>
>That's similar to ethnl_std_parse(), the idea is that this is the
>standard handler for notifications which are triggered without
>additional data and the message is the same as reply to corresponding
>"GET" request (which is generated by the standard ethnl_get_doit()
>handler). Notifications for actions and notifications for SET commands
>which cannot be generated this standard way will have to use their own
>(nonstandard) handler.
So "default"? The "standard" sounds rather weird to me. It isn't any
"standard" :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists