netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] can: etas_es58x: export product information through devlink_ops::info

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CAMZ6RqJS5X54WyKyPxt+nqMSbiKVWiwZ85o9q860_z_uGfaawQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Nov 2022 08:17:55 +0900
From:   Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        Lukas Magel <lukas.magel@...teo.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] can: etas_es58x: export product information
 through devlink_ops::info_get()

On Tue. 29 Nov. 2022 at 07:27, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 23:43:19 +0900 Vincent MAILHOL wrote:
> > On Mon. 28 Nov. 2022 at 22:49, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> > > > devlink does not yet have a name suited for the bootloader and so this
> > > > last piece of information is exposed to the userland for through a
> > > > custom name: "bl".
> > >
> > > Jiri, what do you think about 'bl'? Is it too short, not well known
> > > enough? It could easily be 'bootloader'.
> >
> > For the record, I name it "bl" by analogy with the firmware which is
> > named "fw". My personal preference would have been to name the fields
> > without any abbreviations: "firmware", "bootloader" and
> > "hardware.revision" (for reference ethtool -i uses
> > "firmware-version"). But I tried to put my personal taste aside and
> > try to fit with the devlink trends to abbreviate things. Thus the name
> > "bl".
>
> Agreed, I thought "fw" is sufficiently universally understood to be used
> but "bl" is most definitely not :S  I'd suggest "fw.bootloader". Also
> don't hesitate to add that to the "well known" list in devlink.h,
> I reckon it will be used by others sooner or later.

I like the "fw.bootloader" suggestion. A bootloader is technically
still a firmware. I will send a separate patch to add the entry to
devlink.h and only then send the v5.