Re: [RFC] usbnet: use eth%d name for known ethernet devices

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:17:34 +0100 Michal Nazarewicz wrote:

> >>>>>> @@ -97,6 +97,8 @@ struct driver_info {
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  #define FLAG_LINK_INTR       0x0800          /* updates link (carrier) status */
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +#define FLAG_PTP     0x1000          /* maybe use "usb%d" names */
> 
> >>>> On Wednesday 23 March 2011 19:46:50 Greg KH wrote:
> >>>>> "PTP"?  What does that stand for?
> 
> >>> On Mar 23, 2011 8:36 PM, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >>>> point-to-point, I'll improve the comment to spell it out when
> >>>> I send the fixed version.
> 
> >> On Wednesday 23 March 2011 20:53:13 Michał Nazarewicz wrote:
> >>> I think P2P could be better.
> 
> > On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:57:18 +0100 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> Yes, good idea.
> 
> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> writes:
> > that's peer-to-peer.
> >
> > OTOH, I knew that PTP was point-to-point.
> 
> It can be any of that, depending on context.  For me PTP is more like
> Picture Transport Protocol, whereas "2" between two letters is usually
> "to".
> 
> Just my two cents though, no strong feelings or anything.

Agreed.

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***