netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 02/12] netlink: spec: add shaper YAML spec

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: <9f4854e4-f199-467a-bf42-9633033f191d@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 17:31:17 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Madhu Chittim <madhu.chittim@...el.com>,
 Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
 Sunil Kovvuri Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>,
 Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/12] netlink: spec: add shaper YAML spec



On 8/13/24 16:58, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:47:34 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>>> Creating a node inside a tree, isn't it? Therefore subtree.
>>>
>>> All nodes are inside the tree.
>>>    
>>>> But it could be unified to node_set() as Paolo suggested. That would
>>>> work for any node, including leaf, tree, non-existent internal node.
>>>
>>> A "set" operation which creates a node.
>>
>> Here the outcome is unclear to me. My understanding is that group() does
>> not fit Jiri nor Donald and and node_set() or subtree_set() do not fit
>> Jakub.
>>
>> Did I misread something? As a trade-off, what about, group_set()?
> 
> "set" is not a sensible verb for creating something. "group" in
> the original was the verb.
> Why are both saying "set" and not "create"? What am I missing?

Please, don't read too much in my limited English skills!
I'm fine with group_create() - or create_group()

Still WRT naming, I almost forgot about the much blamed 'detached' 
scope. Would 'node' or 'group' be a better name? (the latter only if we 
rename the homonymous operation)

Thanks,

Paolo