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: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 11:23:50 +0000 From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com> To: Benjamin Poirier <benjamin.poirier@...il.com> CC: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] ip link: add sub-command to view and change DSA master On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 03:09:50PM +0900, Benjamin Poirier wrote: > > So are we or are we not in the clear with IFLA_DSA_MASTER and > > "ip link set ... type dsa master ..."? What does being in the clear even > > mean technically, and where can I find more details about the policy > > which you just mentioned? Like is it optional or mandatory, was there > > any public debate surrounding the motivation for flagging some words, > > how is it enforced, are there official exceptions, etc? > > There are more details in > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst, end of ยง4. Thanks for the pointer. So it says that if DSA was introduced in 2020 or later, a master should have probably been named a host controller or something of that kind. Which is probably reasonable in this context. But I don't have the time and energy at my disposal to transition DSA to an inclusive naming convention, at least not in a way that wouldn't then be detrimential/confusing in the short term to the user base. So I'll keep using IFLA_DSA_MASTER, my reading of it is that it's ok.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists