[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJieiUhKYB2AcSphh1pP8dpe_mdkG+2ri2SofYkEcXEgDAyMOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 22:04:04 -0700
From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 3/6] net: Introduce IFF_LWT_NETDEV flag
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 5:57 PM, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
> On 5/8/17 1:11 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
>> Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 10:55:12 +0200
>>
>>>
>>>> +static inline bool netif_is_lwd(struct net_device *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return !!(dev->priv_flags & IFF_LWT_NETDEV);
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Am I the only one who thinks that this "LWT_NETDEV" vs "LWD" is a bit
>>> confusing?
>>
>> Agreed, my old eyes can't discern them at a distance :-)
>>
>
> perhaps it is the tiny font your old eyes are having trouble with :-)
>
> I am fine with Johannes' suggestion -- just spell it out:
> netif_is_lwt_netdev
>
> where lwt = LightWeighT
makes sense...but this does sound like a 'light weight tunnel
netdevice' though.....just cause 'LWT' already expands to 'light
weight tunnel'
Powered by blists - more mailing lists