Re: [PATCH net-next v11 03/23] ovpn: add basic netlink support

[Sergey Ryazanov <ryazanov.s.a@gmail.com>]

On 15.11.2024 12:19, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> On 09/11/2024 00:31, Sergey Ryazanov wrote:
>> On 29.10.2024 12:47, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>>> +/**
>>> + * struct ovpn_struct - per ovpn interface state
>>> + * @dev: the actual netdev representing the tunnel
>>> + * @dev_tracker: reference tracker for associated dev
>>> + */
>>> +struct ovpn_struct {
>>
>> There is no standard convention how to entitle such structures, so the 
>> question is basically of out-of-curiosity class. For me, having a 
>> sturcuture with name 'struct' is like having no name. Did you consider 
>> to use such names as ovpn_dev or ovpn_iface? Meaning, using a name 
>> that gives a clue regarding the scope of the content.
> 
> Yes, I wanted to switch to ovpn_priv, but  did not care much for the 
> time being :)
> 
> I can still do it now in v12.

This topic caused me the biggest doubts. I don't want to ask to rename 
everything on the final lap. Just want to share an outside perspective 
on the structure name. And let you decide is it worth or not.

And if you ask me, ovpn_priv does not give a clue either. The module is 
too complex for a vague structure name, even after your great work on 
clearing its design.

--
Sergey