[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202006091358.6FD35CF@keescook>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 14:34:33 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
stephen@...workplumber.org, o.rempel@...gutronix.de,
andrew@...n.ch, f.fainelli@...il.com, hkallweit1@...il.com,
kuba@...nel.org, corbet@....net, linville@...driver.com,
david@...tonic.nl, kernel@...gutronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
mkl@...gutronix.de, marex@...x.de, christian.herber@....com,
amitc@...lanox.com, petrm@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool v1] netlink: add master/slave configuration
support
On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 10:53:03PM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> The same IMHO holds for your example with register states or names:
> I believe it is highly beneficial to make them consistent with technical
> documentation. There are even cases where we violate kernel coding style
> (e.g. by using camelcase) to match the names from specification.
Yup, when I saw the original patch it wasn't clear this was matching a
spec. I haven't been arguing for the $subject patch since Dave pointed
that out, and am now trying to shape what the general guidance should
be.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists