From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jay Vosburgh Subject: Re: [PATCH next 4/6] bonding: Allow userspace to set system_priority Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 23:05:17 -0800 Message-ID: <28432.1423551917@famine> References: <1423270314-9271-1-git-send-email-maheshb@google.com> <20150207033847.GD34197@gospo.home.greyhouse.net> <6873.1423289974@famine> <13353.1423381584@famine> Cc: Andy Gospodarek , Andy Gospodarek , Veaceslav Falico , Nikolay Aleksandrov , David Miller , netdev , Eric Dumazet To: Mahesh Bandewar Return-path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:36452 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751508AbbBJHF2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2015 02:05:28 -0500 In-reply-to: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Mahesh Bandewar wrote: [...] >Actually I was thinking of making ad_actor_sysprio instead of making >ad_user_port_key (feels like having more underscores makes it >unnecessary longer). That way all three look similar. So > > ad_actor_sysprio > ad_actor_system > ad_user_portkey > >All carry the same theme of meaning. Otherwise we could do something like - > > ad_actor_sys_prio > ad_actor_sys_mac > ad_user_port_key > >Which one seems more logical / reasonable? FWIW, I would go with ad_actor_sys_prio, ad_actor_system and ad_user_port_key. The first two then mimic the terms from the standard, and the "user" one is part of the Actor_Admin_Port_Key from the standard, so it follows the same sort of naming. -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com