[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240813084345.575ffd78@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:43:45 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
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 Tue, 13 Aug 2024 17:31:17 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > "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()
Again, group was a verb :)
I don't think anyone suggested group as a noun / object.
> 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)
I vote 'node', given the above.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists