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

On 03/23/11 16:17, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

@@ -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 */

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

On Wednesday 23 March 2011 19:46:50 Greg KH wrote:

quoted

"PTP"?  What does that stand for?

quoted

quoted

quoted

On Mar 23, 2011 8:36 PM, "Arnd Bergmann"[off-list ref]  wrote:

quoted

point-to-point, I'll improve the comment to spell it out when
I send the fixed version.

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

I think P2P could be better.

quoted

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

quoted

Yes, good idea.

Randy Dunlap[off-list ref]  writes:

quoted

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".

Well, my 2 cents, picture transport protocol is so obviously different 
than flags for network interfaces it does not cause a mental collision. 
However P2P is about to become a huge wifi issue, which definitely is in 
the network space. So don't confuse things in the near future, don't use 
P2P.

Maybe a completely different, not so overused flag name would be better.

Regards, Steve