[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <638cd906-e3b4-4236-9c33-79413f030a4c@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:21:52 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, 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 19:12, Donald Hunter wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 16:58:33 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>>> It's a tree, so perhaps just stick with tree terminology, everyone is
>>>> used to that. Makes sense? One way or another, this needs to be
>>>> properly described in docs, all terminology. That would make things more
>>>> clear, I believe.
>>>
>>> @Jakub, would you be ok with:
>>>
>>> 'inputs' -> 'leaves'
>>> 'output' -> 'node'
>>> ?
>>
>> I think the confusion is primarily about th parent / child.
>> input and output should be very clear, IMO.
>
> input / output seems the most intuitive of the different terms that have
> been suggested.
Since a sort of agreement was reached about using root / leaf instead,
and (quoting someone smarter then me) a good compromise makes every
party equally unhappy, would you consider such other option?
Thanks,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists