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: <m2ttfmjgrf.fsf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:07:48 +0100
From: Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,  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

Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> writes:

> 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?

Sure, if that is the general consensus. Though I do find it confusing
because there are not any tree-like ops. Does that mean you are shifting
away from using 'inputs' and 'output' for the group op?