netdev - Re: [RFC] bonding driver terminology change proposal

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20200716.115947.741360685940124518.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jul 2020 11:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     jarod@...hat.com
Cc:     mkubecek@...e.cz, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] bonding driver terminology change proposal

From: Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 23:06:55 -0400

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 9:00 PM David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>>
>> From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
>> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 00:00:16 +0200
>>
>> > Could we, please, avoid breaking existing userspace tools and scripts?
>>
>> I will not let UAPI breakage, don't worry.
> 
> Seeking some clarification here. Does the output of
> /proc/net/bonding/<bond> fall under that umbrella as well?

Yes, anything user facing must not break.