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

On Wednesday 23 March 2011 20:53:13 Michał Nazarewicz wrote:

On Mar 23, 2011 8:36 PM, "Arnd Bergmann" [off-list ref] wrote:
 >
 > On Wednesday 23 March 2011 19:46:50 Greg KH 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 */
 > >
 > > "PTP"?  What does that stand for?
 >
 > point-to-point, I'll improve the comment to spell it out when I send the
 > fixed version.
 
I think P2P could be better.

Yes, good idea.

	Arnd

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:57:18 +0100 Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Wednesday 23 March 2011 20:53:13 Michał Nazarewicz wrote:

quoted

On Mar 23, 2011 8:36 PM, "Arnd Bergmann" [off-list ref] wrote:
 >
 > On Wednesday 23 March 2011 19:46:50 Greg KH 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 */
 > >
 > > "PTP"?  What does that stand for?
 >
 > point-to-point, I'll improve the comment to spell it out when I send the
 > fixed version.
 
I think P2P could be better.

Yes, good idea.

that's peer-to-peer.

OTOH, I knew that PTP was point-to-point.

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