linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] docs: i2c: summary: document 'local' and 'remote' targets

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: <boehtgry7j7ulhrw7tenkmzxujahmxfn25imvb7zw2ibtmebbk@u3jryw4v2y7h>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 21:25:42 +0200
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>, 
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] docs: i2c: summary: document 'local' and 'remote'
 targets

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 09:57:12AM GMT, Easwar Hariharan wrote:
> On 6/17/2024 4:58 AM, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 09:14:40PM GMT, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >>> I am not a big fan of the use of the word client. It's not used
> >>> anywhere in the documentation and it's too generic as a name for
> >>> giving it a specific meaning.
> >>>
> >>> I've seen already some confusion amongst reviewers and
> >>> maintainers when Easwar sent the patch in drm.
> >>>
> >>> If it depends on me, I would stick to the only controller/target
> >>> and render obsolet the use of the word "client" in the i2c
> >>> context.
> >>
> >> Have you read the paragraph "Synonyms" from patch 6? I don't think we
> >> can obsolete client because:
> >>
> >> $ git grep 'struct i2c_client \*client' | wc -l
> >> 6100
> 
> > at least saying that "target" is the
> > preferred name for what was called "client" until now.
> 
> I'm in agreement on obsoleting "client" as well. On the pace of change,
> I'll defer to you. I was trying to elicit a recommendation on future use
> of "client" when I asked:
> 
> ===
> What's the combined effect of this documentation update in terms of the
> recommendation for switching over the Linux kernel? Are we to use
> controller/client or controller/target?
> ===
> 
> "Synonyms" from patch 6 does say that controller/target is preferred but
> couched it in the caveat "If speaking about I2C in general" and
> adapter/client when "discuss[ing] implementation details." I was trying
> to give space for an unambiguous recommendation.

Exactly, this is what I referred to in my previous e-mails.
These two statements sound a bit ambiguous to me, as well.

Maybe we are wasting time at discussing minor details, but I
consider this part important in order to give way to the major
refactoring that Wolfram started at the beginning.

Of course, as of now, I agree that replacing every "client" to
"target" might not make much sense.

Thanks,
Andi

> I think we are on the same page here if we just remove the caveats.
> 
> Thanks,
> Easwar
>