[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251118165028.4e43ee01@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 16:50:28 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
<ast@...erby.net>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Donald Hunter
<donald.hunter@...il.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jacob Keller
<jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jordan Rife <jordan@...fe.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 04/11] netlink: specs: add specification for
wireguard
On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 23:52:30 +0100 Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 09:59:45PM +0000, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
> > So "c-function-prefix" or something might work better.
>
> Also fine with me. I'd just like consistent function naming, one way or
> another.
IIUC we're talking about the prefix for the kernel C codegen?
Feels a bit like a one-off feature to me, but if we care deeply about
it let's add it as a CLI param to the codegen. I don't think it's
necessary to include this in the YAML spec.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists