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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 19:49:27 -0700 From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> Cc: "Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>, Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>, Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>, "Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@...el.com>, "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, "parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>, "tiwai@...e.de" <tiwai@...e.de>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com" <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>, "fred.oh@...ux.intel.com" <fred.oh@...ux.intel.com>, "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>, "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "Patil, Kiran" <kiran.patil@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 12:21 PM Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:41:00PM +0000, Saleem, Shiraz wrote: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:09:09PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 10:33 PM > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 10:18:07AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for the review Leon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add support for the Ancillary Bus, ancillary_device and ancillary_driver. > > > > > > > > It enables drivers to create an ancillary_device and bind an > > > > > > > > ancillary_driver to it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was under impression that this name is going to be changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's part of the opens stated in the cover letter. > > > > > > > > > > ok, so what are the variants? > > > > > system bus (sysbus), sbsystem bus (subbus), crossbus ? > > > > Since the intended use of this bus is to > > > > (a) create sub devices that represent 'functional separation' and > > > > (b) second use case for subfunctions from a pci device, > > > > > > > > I proposed below names in v1 of this patchset. > > > > > > > > (a) subdev_bus > > > > > > It sounds good, just can we avoid "_" in the name and call it subdev? > > > > > > > What is wrong with naming the bus 'ancillary bus'? I feel it's a fitting name. > > An ancillary software bus for ancillary devices carved off a parent device registered on a primary bus. > > Greg summarized it very well, every internal conversation about this patch > with my colleagues (non-english speakers) starts with the question: > "What does ancillary mean?" > https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/20201001071403.GC31191@kroah.com/ > > "For non-native english speakers this is going to be rough, > given that I as a native english speaker had to go look up > the word in a dictionary to fully understand what you are > trying to do with that name." I suggested "auxiliary" in another splintered thread on this question. In terms of what the kernel is already using: $ git grep auxiliary | wc -l 507 $ git grep ancillary | wc -l 153 Empirically, "auxiliary" is more common and closely matches the intended function of these devices relative to their parent device.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists