Re: [PATCH 3/4] can: netlink: Add CAN_CTRLMODE_PRESUME_ACK flag

[Nikita Edward Baruzdin <nebaruzdin@gmail.com>]

I actually think the word "PRESUME" is good enough. We could also use
"NOT_REQUIRE" instead: it's a bit more explicit, but a bit longer.
At least I couldn't think of anything better.

"NOT_WAIT" doesn't reflect the behaviour precisely in my view.
I also believe that the word "IGNORE" is better when it comes to some
"active" message (that supposes some reaction), like "IGNORE_ERRORS" or
"IGNORE_SERVICE_REQUEST". And ACK is more of a reply than a request for
action.

On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 09:18 -0400, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> I tried to find a short name for:
> 
> - do not wait for ack
> - ignore missing ack
> - broadcast that doesn't require an ack
> - ...
> 
> I'm really open for an alternative ;-)
> 
> On 10.07.2014 10:12, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> > On 07/10/2014 04:06 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> >> what do you think about this extension.
> >>
> >>  From my side the patchset makes sense.
> >>> +#define CAN_CTRLMODE_PRESUME_ACK    0x40    /* Ignore missing CAN
> >>> ACKs */
> >
> > Is this a good name? Does anyone come up with an alternative/better one?
> >
> > Marc
> >